Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 9/6/2024, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against defendant Lee is ruled upon as follows.

Although the notice of motion provides notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06, the notice does not comply with that rule and it also provides an incorrect telephone number to making a request for oral argument. Moving counsel directed to review the Local Court Rules, effective 1/1/2025, and to comply with same.

Both moving and opposing counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(g), requiring a single volume of evidence (including declarations) with a table of contents when the evidence exceeds 25 pages.

Opposing counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 2.110; Rule 2.111(3); Rule 3.1110(b)(3); Rule 3.1113(d), (e) and (f); and Rule 3.1116(a) and (c). Opposing counsel is advised that failure to comply with all applicable Rules of Court may in the future result in the non-compliant papers being stricken or entirely disregarded.

Background

This partition action relates to certain real property located at 2118 Seventh Avenue in Sacramento. In the original complaint, plaintiff Jantzen alleges that he and defendant Lee are former romantic parties who jointly purchased the property together as joint tenants in 2004. (Compl., ¶10-11.) The complaint further alleges that defendant Lee quitclaimed her interest in the property to herself as a tenant in common on 8/19/2011. (Compl., ¶12.) The parties are no longer together, are unable to communicate

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

effectively with one another, and have been unable to reach an agreement to sell the property. (Compl., ¶14.) The complaint included causes of action for partition and quiet title but the latter cause of action has already been dismissed. Trial is currently set for 6/15/2026.

Notably, on 9/5/2024, plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication seeking an interlocutory judgment on the first cause of action for partition, offering the following two specific issues for summary adjudication: (1) Plaintiff has the right to partition the subject property at 2118 Seventh Avenue in Sacramento and (2) both plaintiff and defendant hold an undivided one-half interest therein as tenants-in-common. (9/5/2024 Not. of MSA.) As support for this earlier motion, plaintiff offered just five (5) Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”), to wit:

1. Plaintiff Jantzen has co-owned the subject property since 2004.

2. In August 2011, defendant Lee quitclaimed the subject property to herself as a tenant-in-common.

3. The only owners of the subject property are plaintiff Jantzen and defendant Lee as tenants-in-common.

4. The only owners of the subject property are plaintiff Jantzen and defendant Lee with co-equal (i.e., 50/50) ownership interests.

5. Plaintiff Jantzen has a right to partition the subject property. (9/5/2024 Mov. Sep. Stm. of UMF.)

Plaintiff’s 2024 motion for summary adjudication was ultimately denied by this Court on 11/21/2024 for several independent reasons including (1) plaintiff’s failure to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b); (2) the second issue presented for summary adjudication, as framed, did not “completely dispose[]” of any cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty” as required by Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1); (3) plaintiff’s failure to carry his initial burden of production under §437c(p)(1) in two separate respects, i.e., failing to substantively support purported UMF 2 and purported UMF 3; and (4) defendant Lee’s production of evidence was sufficient to create triable issues of material fact. (See, 11/21/2024 Min.

Order, pp.3-7.) Each of these failures constituted its own individual basis for denial of plaintiff’s 2024 motion. Indeed, after explaining each deficiency, the 11/21/2024 ruling repeatedly stated “while the Court need not proceed further,” before explaining yet another independent deficiency mandating denial of plaintiff’s motion.

According to a motion subsequently filed on 4/1/2025, plaintiff Jantzen died on 2/6/2025 and on 6/12/2025, this Court granted a motion to allow Shawna Turkins to be substituted as plaintiff in her capacity as the deceased plaintiff’s successor in interest under Code of Civil Procedure §377.31. (See, 6/12/2025 Min. Order.) Shortly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

thereafter, the present motion for summary judgment was filed on 8/27/2025.

Moving Papers. According to the Notice of Motion filed on 8/27/2025, plaintiff now seeks summary judgment on the sole remaining cause of action for partition and although the Notice of Motion does not indicate that summary adjudication is sought in the alternative to summary judgment, the Notice of Motion nevertheless sets forth two purported “issues” for resolution, to wit:

1. The Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) establish that “the only owners of the real property located at 2118 Seventh Avenue [in] Sacramento are the Plaintiff as an owner of a fifty-percent (50%) undivided interest as a tenant-in-common, and the Defendant as an owner of a fifty-percent (50%) undivided interest as a tenant-in-common, giving the Plaintiff a right to partition the Property;” and 2. The UMF establish that “as an owner of the Property, the Plaintiff has the right to partition the Property.” (8/27/2025 Not. of MSJ, p.2:5-12.)

These two purported issues are substantively identical to the two issues specifically proffered for summary adjudication in plaintiff’s earlier motion filed on 9/5/2024, albeit in reverse order. In any event, in support of the present motion for summary judgment, the moving separate statement filed on 8/27/2025 advances the following five (5) UMF:

1. Plaintiff Jantzen has co-owned the subject property since 2004.

2. In August 2011, defendant Lee quitclaimed the subject property to herself as a tenant-in-common.

3. The only owners of the subject property are plaintiff Jantzen and defendant Lee as tenants-in-common.

4. The only owners of the subject property are plaintiff Jantzen and defendant Lee with co-equal (i.e., 50/50) ownership interests.

5. Plaintiff Jantzen has a right to partition the subject property. (8/27/2025 Mov. Sep. Stm. of UMF.)

These five UMFs are substantively identical to the five UMFs set forth in the separate statement filed in support of the earlier motion for summary adjudication on 9/5/2024 and are even presented in the exact same sequence.

According to the moving points & authorities, “Plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment [sic] was denied solely for a procedural reason, specifically non-compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subdivision (b), requiring the verbatim repetition of the issues from the notice of motion” and “Thus, the reason for the denial of the Plaintiff’s prior motion was procedurally, rather than substantive.” (Mov. MPA., p.4:8-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

11 (underline added for emphasis).) On this basis, the moving papers insist “the Plaintiff has a right to rectify the procedural mistake in another motion as a matter of law.” (Id., at p.4:11-12 (underline added for emphasis).)

Opposition. Defendant Lee opposes, arguing that this motion is “statutorily barred because Plaintiff previously filed a motion for interlocutory summary judgment [sic] which was denied on the merits” and the current motion “fails to resolve all possible defenses raised by Defendant, notwithstanding that Plaintiff failed to file a good-cause application prior to re-filing the current Motion.” The opposition adds that although the cause of action to quiet title has been dismissed, “the propriety of title is still very much at issue and without a judicial determination of the form of title and the interests of the [parties], this court lacks the necessary facts to make a decision for an interlocutory summary ruling on partition.” While this motion is “fixated” on the form of title being tenants in common, plaintiff “points to a quitclaim deed purportedly executed by Defendant, but that quitclaim deed upon which Plaintiff’s partition arguments are entirely based, is defective and therefore void” as “Defendant’s name does not appear correctly on that quitclaim deed ” Moreover, defendant contends plaintiff waived his right to partition by forfeiting his interest in the subject property as confirmed by his own deposition testimony and other discovery.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381- 382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpled issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [defendant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a ‘moving target’ unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v.

Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

moving for summary judgment meets its burden of showing that there is no defense to its cause of action by proving each element of its cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) It is no longer required also to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 10:235, p. 10-89 (rev. # 1, 2006) [when plaintiff moves for summary judgment “[u]nlike former law, it is not plaintiff’s initial burden to disprove affirmative defenses and cross-complaints asserted by defendant”].)

If the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action or defense. In doing so, the defendant cannot rely on the mere allegations or denial of its pleadings, “but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) A triable issue of material fact exists “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [fn. omitted.]” (Aguilar v.

Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Id., at 843.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. CRC Rule 3.1350(b) explicitly mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Another difference is that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1) provides in its entirety:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for [punitive] damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Finally, before turning to the specific issues raised by this motion, the Court reminds the parties of the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (See, Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

(2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 (italics in original).) Similarly, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Nazir, at 252 (citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1); see also, Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506.)

That said, the Court now turns to the specific contentions advanced in support of and opposition to this motion for summary judgment.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the original complaint, defendant’s answer thereto, the 2004 grant deed for the subject property along with the subsequent 2011 quitclaim deed, and the 6/12/2025 order granting plaintiff’s motion for substitution of party is granted but only for the limited purposes appropriate for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451(a); §452(b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of any statements contained therein].; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Discussion

As noted above, the moving points & authorities assert that “Plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment [sic] was denied solely for a procedural reason, specifically noncompliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subdivision (b), requiring the verbatim repetition of the issues from the notice of motion” and “Thus, the reason for the denial of the Plaintiff’s prior motion was procedurally, rather than substantive,” thereby providing plaintiff “a right to rectify the procedural mistake in another motion as a matter of law.” (Mov. MPA., p.4:8-12 (underline added for emphasis).) However, this assertion is inaccurate and shall therefore be rejected in its entirety.

As plainly evident from the 11/21/2024 order denying plaintiff’s 2024 motion, the Court denied plaintiff’s earlier motion on multiple substantive (not procedural) grounds. While it is true that plaintiff’s prior motion for summary adjudication failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b) and this procedural failure was one of multiple grounds for its denial, the Court’s 11/21/2024 ruling specifically set forth several “additional bases for denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.” (11/21/2024 Min. Order, p.4.) Aside from plaintiff’s failure to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b), the Court first pointed out that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

summary adjudication could not be granted on the second of the two issues set forth in the 9/5/2024 Notice of Motion for Summary Adjudication because, as framed, it would not “completely dispose[]” of any cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty” as mandated by the express language of Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1). (See 11/21/2024 Min. Order, p.4.) The inadequate framing of the issue is not a procedural defect but rather, this constitutes a substantive deficiency in that the motion fails to encompass the full substance of an entire cause of action, affirmative defense, etc.

Additionally, the Court explained that plaintiff had also failed to satisfy his initial burden of production under §437c(p)(1) with respect to at least two (2) of the UMFs advanced in the moving papers. Again, the failure to provide adequate evidence to substantiate plaintiff’s purported UMF 2 and UMF 3 constitutes a substantive failure to support the motion, not a procedural defect. Moreover, the Court found that the evidence offered in opposition was sufficient to create at least two separate triable issues of material fact which independently precluded summary adjudication.

Clearly, raising a triable issue of material fact cannot be construed as a mere procedural defect in plaintiff’s own motion. (See id., at pp.4-6.) Consequently, plaintiff’s characterization of the prior motion for summary adjudication being “denied solely for a procedural reason” lacks any factual support and likewise, the suggestion that plaintiff was therefore entitled to file a second motion in order to “rectify the procedural mistake” in the earlier motion for summary adjudication is devoid of any merit.

Plaintiff’s present motion is denied on this basis.

In light of the foregoing, the Court need not proceed further but it does so only in order to indicate yet another a separate and distinct reason why the present motion for summary judgment must be denied. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(2) provides in pertinent part:

A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion. (Underline added for emphasis.)

As demonstrated by the Court’s file, plaintiff previously moved solely for summary adjudication on the cause of action for partition of the subject property and that motion was denied for multiple procedural and substantive reasons on 11/21/2024. (See, 11/21/2024 Min. Order, pp.3-7.) The present motion now seeks only summary judgment and does so based on five UMFs that are substantively identical to the five UMFs on which the earlier 2024 motion for summary adjudication was based, with these UMFs being presented in the exact same sequence. However, plaintiff has here failed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Shawna Turkins in Department 53

to establish and more critically, failed to establish “to the satisfaction of the court,” that the present motion for summary judgment is premised on any “newly discovered facts or circumstances or change of law” so as to permit plaintiff to reassert of the exact same issues and exact same UMFs which were for multiple reasons held to be insufficient in the earlier 2024 motion for summary adjudication. Indeed, the moving papers here effectively concede the present motion which seeks only summary judgment is merely an attempt to cure the earlier motion for summary adjudication’s purported noncompliance with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1350(b).

Notably, plaintiff’s statement in this regard is peculiar given that insofar as the present motion attempts to seek summary judgment only, Rule 3.1350(b) would not be applicable. But in any event, plaintiff’s motion remains barred under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(2). This provides yet an additional ground for denial of plaintiff’s motion.

In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437c(q), the Court need not rule on plaintiff’s written objections to evidence as they pertain to evidence which is not material to the disposition of this motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s present motion for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)