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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPP022299: GARY RAYMOND RICHARDS, et al. vs PETER JOSEPH RENDERS, et al. 06/04/2026 in Department 41 Motion for Summary Judgment 1 Below is the Court’s tentative decision with respect to the matter on calendar. The Court may adopt, modify, or change the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court. If you wish to submit on the Court’s tentative decision without appearing, please send an email to the following address by 8:00 a.m. on the date of the hearing with counsel for all parties’ copied on your email: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov Please state on the subject line of your email: “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party.

If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative decision is subject to change. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.

If you are an attorney or Pro Per and your case is on calendar, you can appear remotely by Zoom for Case Management Conferences and Law & Motion matters. You cannot appear remotely for trials or any matter where testimony or evidence is going to be admitted. This court no longer allows remote appearances by CourtCall. Zoom is the exclusive means by which counsel can appear remotely. Represented parties, interested persons, witnesses, and the public at large, cannot attend remotely. You cannot forward the Court’s Zoom link to others so that they can attend remotely.

Courtroom 41 is open to the public and such individuals can attend

2024CUPP022299: GARY RAYMOND RICHARDS, et al. vs PETER JOSEPH RENDERS, et al. 2 by physically appearing in the courtroom. While appearing remotely by Zoom, it is unlawful to video or audio record the proceedings or take screen shots/still photos of the proceedings.

To appear remotely by Zoom, you must submit an email request to the Court by 4 p.m. the court day before your hearing to: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov, with a subject line that includes “NOTICE TO APPEAR VIA ZOOM.” Your email request must identify the name of the attorney/party who will appear by Zoom and all counsel/parties must be copied on your email request. When appearing by Zoom, you will need to mute yourself until your case is called at which point you will also have to turn on your camera.

The court calendar begins at 9 a.m. Assuming you have given advance email notice the court day before your hearing of your intent to appear by Zoom, you may enter the Courtroom 41 Zoom waiting room at 8:15 a.m. on the day of your hearing through this link: https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/j/81985625079?pwd=cHV2MENmWGNLSnJCMlM5Sk1xRk 0vdz09 For information about Judge DeNoce including his case management and trial rules, please visit: www.DeNoce.com ______________________________________________________________ Tentative Decision: Defendant Channel Islands SMI, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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.