Hong Wang v. Changzhuang Yu et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 21CV391013 Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Piazza's Fine Foods, Inc. et al. Line 2 21CV391013 Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Piazza's Fine Foods, Inc. et al. Line 3 23CV424908 Heriberto Mendoza et al. Defendant’s motion to abate proceedings. Notice is proper, and v. Martin Velasquez the motion is opposed by plaintiffs. The motion is based on the court’s inherent authority to stay proceedings in the interest of justice. (Citing Freiberg v.

City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Defense counsel argues the case must be stayed because defendant is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence that limits his participation in the action. That showing, without more, is inadequate to support a stay of proceedings. The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 24CV441236 Hong Wang v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Changzhuang Yu et al.

Calendar Line 4 Case Name: Hong Wang v. Changzhuang Yu et al. Case No.: 24CV441236

This is an action primarily for negligence and breach of contract brought by plaintiff Hong Wang (Wang) against defendants Changzhuang Yu, Yong Wang, Hui Jin, and Doe defendants.

The original and still operative complaint is a form complaint filed in June 2024. It alleges five causes of action: (1) premises liability; (2) general negligence; (3) breach of contract; (4) hiring unlicensed contractor; and (5) unfair business practices. There are no exhibits attached to the complaint. The narrative portion of the premises liability attachment alleges that “[o]n or about May 24, 2024 the defendants employed the plaintiff to demolish a structure at 162 Evergreen Way, Milpitas, CA 95035. During the demolition, a wooden beam struck the plaintiff’s right ankle, causing severe and permanent injury.” (Complaint, Prem.L- 1.) Defendants Yong Wang and Hui Jin filed separate answers to the complaint in September 2024.

At issue is a motion for summary judgment jointly filed by defendants Yong Wang and Hui Jin (hereafter, Defendants) that Wang opposes.

GENERAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The pleadings limit the issues presented for summary judgment or summary adjudication and such a motion may not be granted or denied based on issues not raised by the pleadings. (See Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258 (Laabs); Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 73 (Nieto).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).)

A motion for summary judgment or adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an “issue of duty.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1); McCaskey v. California State Auto. Ass’n (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 947, 975 (McCaskey); Palm Spring Villas II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 288.)

“A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. . . . The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show there is a triable issue of material fact on that issue.” (Alex R. Thomas & Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 66, 72; internal citations omitted.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable finder of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)

While the same standards of admissibility govern both sides’ supporting evidence, the opposition evidence is liberally construed while the moving party’s evidence is strictly construed. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.) The evidence must be liberally construed in support of the opposing party, resolving any doubts in favor of that party. (Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037 (Yanowitz).)

A reply “shall not include any new evidentiary matter, additional material facts, or separate statement submitted with the reply and not presented in the moving papers or opposing papers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4); Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38; Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (Nazir).)

DISCUSSION

Defendants move for summary judgment “on the ground that there are no triable issues of material fact,” and for summary adjudication of each cause of action in the alternative. (See notice of motion and motion at p. 2:2-3.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b) states that: “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.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(1)(A) further states that the statement in support of a motion “must separately identify: (A) Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.”

Defendants’ separate statement does not comply with these rules. It lists 16 undisputed material facts (UMFs) in support of summary judgment. The statement is also not in the twocolumn format required by the rules of court. The motion is therefore considered one for summary judgment only.

Attached directly to Defendants’ separate statement are three packets of documents labeled exhibits A-C, which are cited by the UMFs. Defendants’ motion is supported by a single declaration from Claudia Lozano, one of Defendants’ attorneys. This declaration makes a series of arguments as to what Lozano believes evidence in the case (unspecified deposition testimony and discovery responses) demonstrates. The declaration also states that “[t]rue and correct copies of relevant excerpts of the discovery responses and deposition testimony will be lodged as exhibits in support of this motion.” (Lozano Decl., ¶ 9.) However, no separate packet of supporting evidence was filed in support of the motion, and the Lozano declaration does not specifically refer to or authenticate any of the three exhibits attached directly to the separate statement.

“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received into evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 1401(a).) “Authentication means either the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the writing is what the proponent claims it is, or ‘the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law’ (e.g., by stipulation or admissions).” (Midland Funding LLC v. Romero (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 8, citing Evid. Code, § 1400.) “The party offering the writing has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence of its authenticity to sustain a finding of fact to that effect.” (Ibid., citing Evid.

Code § 403, subd. (a)(3); see also Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 523 [explaining that ordinarily in law and motion matters, a writing is authenticated by declarations establishing how the documents were obtained, who identified them, and their status as “true and correct” copies of the original].) Because the exhibits attached to the separate statement are not authenticated, they do not provide support for the UMFs listed in the statement. The statement also contains a single citation to a “Wang Decl.” (see UMF 13), but no such declaration was filed in support of the motion. 8

The only admissible evidence filed in support of the motion is the declaration from attorney Lozano. The Lozano declaration is insufficient to meet Defendants’ initial burden for summary judgment. The Lozano declaration is not cited in Defendants’ statement as support for any UMF. It does not authenticate any of the documents attached directly to the statement. And Lozano’s declaration statements purporting to summarize what unspecified discovery responses and testimony establishes are not themselves evidence. (See opposition at p. 11:24- 28.)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied for failure to meet the initial burden.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied for failure to meet the initial burden.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

9