Motion for summary adjudication
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
132.) This is sufficient to state a claim for violation of Penal Code § 502.
As to Vortek, there are no factual allegations as to how it accessed Plaintiff’s computers or otherwise took actions to knowingly assist Torres and Stetzko in accessing the computer system. Moreover, Vortek was not in existence at the time Torres and Stetzko were employed by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the eleventh cause of action is OVERRULED as to Torres and Stetzko and SUSTAINED as to Vortek with leave to amend.
Fourteenth Cause of Action – Violation of Penal Code § 496
Penal Code § 496 makes it a crime to buy, receive, conceal, sell, or withhold property that is known to been stolen or obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion.
The FAC alleges Defendants knowingly received and possessed AirGap’s property knowing that such property had been obtained unlawfully and without Plaintiff’s consent.
Defendants argue the FAC fails to allege Defendants had “actual knowledge of the stolen character of the property.” But this argument is just a matter of semantics. Plaintiff alleges the property was “unlawfully obtained” which is synonymous with theft.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourteenth cause of action is OVERRULED.
The case management conference is continued to October 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.
Plaintiff has 20 days leave to amend the complaint.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.
58. Rajabi v. The court will not issue a tentative on the motion to enforce Smith the settlement or on the motion for leave to intervene.
2023- The parties and/or their counsel are ordered to appear on 01344444 June 8, 2026 to discuss the status of this case.
59. Vizcarra v. Defendant / cross-defendant Dock Pros, Inc.’s unopposed Bevmo! Inc. motion for summary adjudication as to plaintiff Isidro Vizcarra’s complaint, as well as indemnity cross-complaints by 2023- defendants / cross-complainants Bevmo! Inc. [“Bevmo”], and 01348855 Shear Construction, is GRANTED IN PART and MOOT IN PART. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The motion is MOOT as to Shear Construction’s crosscomplaint, which was dismissed on 5-12-26. (ROA 342.)
The remainder of the motion is GRANTED.
On summary judgment / adjudication, the moving party’s papers are strictly construed, while the opposing party’s papers are liberally construed. (Comm. to Save Beverly Highland Homes Assoc. v. Beverly Highland (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1260.) A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence on a motion for summary judgment / adjudication, and all evidentiary conflicts are to be resolved against the moving party. (McCabe v. American Honda Motor Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1119.)
Moving Party was named as Doe 3, and thus is named in plaintiff’s 1st C/A for negligence and 2nd C/A for premises liability, but not the 3rd C/A for products liability. (MP Ex. K [Complaint], Ex. L [Doe amendment].)
The elements of negligence [1st C/A] are: (1) defendant’s legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect the plaintiff; (2) defendant failed to meet this standard of conduct; (3) causation; (4) damages. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) The elements of a premises liability claim [2nd C/A] are the same for negligence generally: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158; citations omitted.)
Premises liability “is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises ...” (Id.; citations omitted; see also CACI 1000 [elements of a claim for premises liability are: (1) defendant owned, leased, occupied, and/or controlled the property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) causation; (4) damages].)
Moving party has proven that neither plaintiff nor Bevmo can establish the essential elements of duty and/or breach, because it installed the subject dock lift with safety chains (Moving Party Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 1, 2); that it has not performed any work, services, or maintenance thereafter (Id., Fact No. 8); and never received any complaints or other notice regarding the subject dock lift or safety chains thereafter (Id., Fact Nos. 9-11). (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [negligence elements]; Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 [premises liability elements]; Bailey v. Safeway, Inc. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 206, 212 [indemnity elements].)
Moving party has established it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Complaint.
Moving party seeks summary judgment on the indemnity cross-complaint by Bevmo.
The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is equitably responsible. (Bailey v. Safeway, Inc. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) “Cross-complaints for indemnification usually incorporate by reference the allegations of the complaint as a ‘shorthand’ way of showing the existence of the claim for which indemnification is sought.” (Pine Terrace Apartments, L.P. v. Windscape, LLC (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.) Bevmo’s cross-complaint does so here. (Ex. N [Bevmo cross-complaint], Paras. 9, 10.)
Moving party has also established its right to summary judgment on the indemnity cross-complaint by Bevmo for the same reasons it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Complaint.
Since the motion is unopposed, plaintiff and Bevmo have failed to meet their shifted burden to show any material triable issue.
The court orders judgment in favor of Defendant/cross- defendant Dock Pros, Inc.
Moving party shall give notice of this ruling.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.