GARY RAYMOND RICHARDS, et al. vs PETER JOSEPH RENDERS, et al.

Defendant Channel Islands SMI, LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). For purposes of this motion only, the Court finds the following undisputed material facts submitted by defendant (“UMFs”) are undisputed and established by the cited evidence: 1-21.

2024CUPP022299: GARY RAYMOND RICHARDS, et al. vs PETER JOSEPH RENDERS, et al. 3 Summary judgment procedure is well-settled: “A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) A party may also 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 damages, or one or more issues of duty. . . .” (Code of Civ.

Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “The court must grant the motion if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact [citation omitted]-that is, there is no issue requiring a trial as to any fact that is necessary under the pleadings and, ultimately, the law [citations omitted]-and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law [citation omitted].” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855-56, 107, Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493, internal quotation marks omitted (“Aguilar”).) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Id., 25 Cal.4th at p. 855, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.)

The Court must construe the evidentiary showing, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Id., 25 Cal.4th at p. 857, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.) The Court follows a three-part test in ruling on the motion: (1) “First, . . . the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Id., 25 Cal.4th at p. 850, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.) (2) “Second, . . . the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.) (3) “Third, . . . how the parties moving for, and opposing, summary judgment may each carry their burden of persuasion and/or production depends on which would bear what burden of proof at trial.” (Id., 25 Cal.4th at p. 851, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.)

Defendant has satisfied its initial burden by submitting sufficient evidence to show that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof on their complaint for negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress; premises liability; and loss of consortium. Accordingly, the burden of proof has shifted to Plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of material fact. To date, no opposition to this motion has been filed. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof. Plaintiffs have not raised a triable issue of material fact.

Therefore, summary judgment appears proper as there is no triable issue of material fact in this case that warrants the weighty procedures of trial. Counsel for Defendant shall serve and file a notice of ruling and proposed order consistent with the above.