Simpson v. Urdaneta-Cassoma CA1/5

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2025 No. A171999Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the defendants submitted declarations negating the plaintiff's allegations, and the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to create a triable issue of material fact.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment when the defendants supported their motion with declarations and the plaintiff failed to present evidence in opposition.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The plaintiff “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists”

“Because Simpson failed to do so, the trial court correctly granted the summary judgment motion.”

Filed 6/20/25 Simpson v. Urdaneta-Cassoma CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

AZIZA SIMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A171999

JENNIFER URDANETA-CASSOMA (Alameda County et al., Super. Ct. No. 23CV038168) Defendants and Respondents.

Aziza Simpson appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in her tort action against her former neighbors, Jennifer Urdaneta-Cassoma and Evandro Cassoma (collectively, “the Cassomas”). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In her (pro per) complaint, Simpson alleged that, after the Cassomas moved into the apartment directly above hers, they engaged in conduct constituting harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with her right to quiet enjoyment of her home. She alleged that the Cassomas repeatedly called the sheriff on her, falsely reporting that she was smoking, doing drugs, and producing excessive noise. According to her complaint, the Cassomas were excessively noisy and intentionally dropped heavy objects on their floor—directly 1

above Simpson’s head—causing loud disturbances at all hours of the day and night. In addition, Simpson alleged that the Cassomas installed two security cameras, one trained on her car and one trained on the front gate of their apartment complex, for the purpose of harassing and spying on her. Simpson further alleged that Evandro Cassoma approached her in a threatening manner on several occasions.

The Cassomas filed a motion for summary judgment, with supporting declarations from both Jennifer and Evandro. The declarations specifically denied Simpson’s allegations, stating that they did not harass or threaten Simpson; they did not falsely accuse her of smoking, using drugs, or making excessive noise; they did not install security cameras for the purpose of harassing or spying on her; and they did not make excessive noise, intentionally drop items on the floor of their apartment, or intentionally make noise in their apartment. Nor did they call the sheriff to complain about Simpson for the purpose of harassing her.

Simpson v. Urdaneta-Cassoma CA1/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

SIMONS, ACTING P. J. CHOU, J.

AI Brief