Chaudhary vs. Lakeside Maintenance Association

20 Chaudhary vs. Motion for Summary Adjudication Lakeside Maintenance The court DENIES Defendants LAKESIDE MAINTENANCE Association ASSOCIATION and MARK WARD’s motion for summary adjudication.

The California Rules of Court require the following:

If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.

(Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1350(b), emphasis supplied.)

Defendants’ moving papers do not comply with this rule. The notice of motion fails to state what issue is sought to be adjudicated. Instead, the notice of motion requests “an order granting summary adjudication in their favor of the Second Amended Complaint” and states that the motion “is made on the grounds that the plaintiff is not entitled to build his residential unit into the common areas of the LAKEWISE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION ... [or] into the ‘yard’ area surrounding his residential unit....” (Not. of Mot, at p. 2, lines 2-11.)

Glancing at the table of contents in support of the motion, the motion appears to be directed at numerous causes of action, including a “FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE.” (Mot. At p. 3, lines 16-17.) But there is no fifth cause of action for negligence.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserts the following causes of action:

1. Declaratory judgment 2. Breach of covenants 3. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing 4. Violation of the Davis-Stirling Act

5. Violation of the common interest development open meeting act 6. Negligence 7. Breach of fiduciary duty 8. Housing discrimination in violation of FEHA 9. Retaliation in violation of FEHA 10. Injunctive relief

The motion is procedurally defective and DENIED on that basis.

Plaintiff to give notice.

59