SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al.

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 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

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiff James Sandford’s “Motion for Summary Judgment, for Plaintiff to Move on Normal Again and the Abuse of Process, Breaching in Discovery Rules, from Defence [sic] to Stop” is denied.

According to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, this action arises from counseling services provided to Plaintiff by Defendant Terra Nova Counseling DDP in order to rehabilitate Plaintiff’s driver’s license and standing after driving under the influence charges. Generally, Plaintiff alleges Terra Nova failed to conduct the contracted-for sessions and wrongfully terminated him from its program, which prevented him from completing the program that was required to reinstate his driver’s license. Plaintiff alleges he lost the fees he paid to Terra Nova and faced delays starting his trucking business, which has caused him financial, emotional and psychological harm.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the Court engages in a threestep process. First, the issues framed by the pleadings must be identified since the pleadings themselves define the scope of what may be addressed via a motion for summary judgment/adjudication (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382) and the 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 unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to such a motion may not create triable issues beyond the scope of the pleadings, nor are they a substitute for filing amended pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its initial burden of production. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(1) explains that a plaintiff or crosscomplainant moving for summary judgment/adjudication “[meets] his or her 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” and only when “the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden” does the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” A party opposing summary judgment/adjudication has no evidentiary burden unless the moving party has first met his/her initial burden. (Binder v.

Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840; see also Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1151-1152; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085-1086.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Only where the moving party makes the requisite initial showing does a court need to examine the opposition papers to determine if the latter demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment/adjudication. (Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) The opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. (Id.)

In ruling on the motion, a court must construe the evidence of the opposing party liberally and that of the moving party strictly, resolving any doubts in the opposing party’s favor. (Miller v. Bechtel Corp. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 868, 874; Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 925-926; see also, Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Brown v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. One of these differences is found in CRC Rule 3.1350(b), which 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.

Finally, before turning to the present 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 (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 (italics in original).) Moreover, 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).)

As applied here, there are significant procedural and substantive defects in Plaintiff’s “motion for summary judgment” which are explained herein and require denial of Plaintiff’s motion at the outset.

Preliminarily, the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s “motion for order to partial summary judgment”, which the Court construed as a motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action on December 19, 2024. Where, as here, a party makes a motion for summary judgment after denial of its prior motion for summary adjudication, CCP § 437c(f)(2) provides as follows: “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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

in the summary judgment motion.” As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff appears to raise similar issues on the instant motion as he did in the previous motion which was denied on December 19, 2024. Plaintiff, however, has failed to address CCP § 437c(f)(2), much less establish what newly discovered fact or circumstances or a change in law exist to justify bringing any motion for summary judgment after his earlier motion for summary adjudication has been denied. On this basis alone, Plaintiff’s motion is fatally defective and is denied on such grounds.

Next, even if CCP § 437c(f)(2) had not barred Plaintiff’s motion, the motion must still be denied on additional and independent grounds. To that end, like the previous failed motion, Plaintiff’s present motion does not include a separate statement as required by CCP § 437c(b)(1). “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.” (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to include a separate statement is a sufficient basis on which to deny the motion.

This is particularly true because the purpose of that document is to “set [] forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Id.) Further, “[e]ach of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.” (Id.) Without the separate statement, the Court or any potentially opposing party has no way to determine what material facts Plaintiff contends are undisputed and what evidence supports those facts. Nor can Plaintiff satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment, as explained earlier, without a proper separate statement.

Thus, on this additional and independent basis, Plaintiff’s motion must be and is denied.

Finally, even if none of the previously-discussed fatal defects in Plaintiff’s motion existed, the motion must still be denied on yet additional, independent grounds. Here, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities fails to address the legal elements of any of the causes of action set forth in the operative second amended complaint and how the evidence (whatever that unspecified and uncited evidence may be), is sufficient to demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his second amended complaint. Thus, separate and apart from the earlier discussed deficiencies, Plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden to demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion must be denied on this additional and independent basis.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.