Lindeman vs. FCA US, LLC

The Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication requires all material facts be set forth in the separate statement – “if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.)

Because Defendant did not meet its initial burden, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)

Accordingly, the motion is denied as to this issue.

Issue 5: Claim for Punitive Damages: Fails because Plaintiff has no evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice by AHM.

Defendant did not meet its initial burden on this issue. Although the parties addressed this issue in their memorandums, Defendant did not address this issue in Defendant’s separate statement.

The Separate Statement in support of a motion must separately identify each claim for damages that is the subject of the motion and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to claim for damages that is the subject of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1350(d).) “The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

The Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication requires all material facts be set forth in the separate statement – “if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.)

Because Defendant did not meet its initial burden, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)

Accordingly, the motion is denied as to this issue.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

102 2023-01352224 Motion to Substitute

Lindeman vs. FCA Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute Successor Trustee Ropey Trujillo in Place of Deceased US, LLC Plaintiff, Charles Lindeman, is granted.

“On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)

Here, the Successor Trustee, Ropey Trujillo, has submitted a declaration that complies with all the requirements of CCP section 377.32. (ROA 164.) As such, the Court grants the motion and orders Ropey Trujillo, as Successor Trustee, be substituted for Charles