Uneka Thomas v. All State Insurance Company

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 400) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 400 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Uneka Thomas v. All State Insurance Company, Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 26STCV05602, set for hearing on September 1, 2026. Uneka Thomas (Plaintiff) moves for summary judgment in her favor and against All State Insurance Company (Defendant). Defendant opposes the motion on procedural grounds. The Court denies summary judgment. A.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can show evidentiary support for a claim or defense and if not to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, subdivision (c) "requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and 'all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence' and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Adler v.

Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) As to each claim as framed by the complaint, a plaintiff "has met that party's burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action." (Id., Sec. 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Courts "liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party." (Dore v.

Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389 (Dore).) Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the opposing defendant "to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) B.

Discussion

Plaintiff's motion is procedurally deficient. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence in support of her motion. Instead, she submits a separate statement of undisputed facts with references to various documents that have not been provided. Thus, Plaintiff has not met her initial burden of proving each element of the causes of action entitling her to judgment as a matter of law, as she has provided no evidence. Various documents are attached to her original complaint, but the purported separate statement does not reference any specific exhibits or pages included within the complaint's attachments. Plaintiff's motion is thus not in compliance with the requirements of Rule of Court 3.1350. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Conclusion: Plaintiff's motion is denied. Case Number: 26STCV06096 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 400 MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE The Court tenders the following decision in the matter Daniel Murphy, et al. v. Paradigm Peptides, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 26STCV06096, set for hearing on September 1, 2026. Paradigm Peptides (Paradigm), Jennifer Stechkober, and Matthew Kawa (collectively, Defendants) separately move to quash service of Daniel and Laura Murphy's (collectively, Plaintiffs) first amended complaint (FAC), arguing that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction. The motions are continued for 75 days pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery. A.

Legal Standard

A defendant may file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) "When a defendant moves to quash service of process, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction." (ParaFi Digital Opportunities LP v. Egorov (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 124, 133 (ParaFi).) The plaintiff must present evidence of jurisdiction, not just allegations. (Ibid.) The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Ibid.)

California courts exercise personal jurisdiction to its fullest extent, consistent with the California and United States Constitutions. (Id., Sec. 410.10.) For a non-resident defendant to be subject to a court's personal jurisdiction, they must have sufficient minimum contacts with California. (Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291.) Minimum contacts may justify a finding of either general or specific jurisdiction. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919 (Goodyear).)

When a court asserts general jurisdiction over a defendant, it may hear all claims against them. (Goodyear, supra, 564 U.S. at p. 919.) General jurisdiction exists where a foreign corporation's affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to "render [it] essentially at home in the forum state." (Ibid.) General jurisdiction is generally limited to a foreign corporation's state of incorporation and the state constituting its principal place of business. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.)

A court asserting specific jurisdiction may only hear claims "deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction." (Goodyear, supra, 564 U.S. at p. 919.) To exercise personal jurisdiction, a court must find an "affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State." (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco (2017) 582 U.S. 255, 264.) A California court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if three requirements are met: "(1)