Corona v. O.C. Petroleum, Inc.
30-2016-00832361
Defendant O.C. Petroleum, Inc.?s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for adjudication of issue is denied.
As an initial matter, the court does not consider Plaintiff?s objections because Plaintiff did not properly set forth her objections.? (See Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1354.)? The court also declines to consider Plaintiff?s sur-reply.
?A party may 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, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit. . . . ?A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.?? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
However, the court may not summarily adjudicate any causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damage, or issues of duty if such cause of action, defense, claim, or issue was not properly noticed.? (Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (Dividend Develop. Corp.)(1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 496.)? The ?specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.?? (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1350(b).)
Defendant did not comply with the express notice requirements set forth in? Rule of Court 3.1350(b).? Defendant?s notice states that Defendant seeks, in the alternative, ?summary adjudication of issues, pursuant to C.C.P. ?437c? without specifying which issues Defendant seeks summary adjudication.? As such, Defendant?s alternative motion for summary adjudication is denied.
?[F]rom commencement to conclusion, 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.?? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)? ?A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.?? (Id. at p. 851.)? A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 437c, subd. (p)(2).)? The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff?s complaint.? (FPI Development v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382 [pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion]; 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18-19 [defendant only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint].)
A cause of action cannot be established if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of the plaintiff?s allegations as a matter of law.? (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.)? Alternatively, a moving defendant can show that a cause of action cannot be established by submitting evidence, such as discovery admissions and responses, that plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to establish an essential element of his cause of action.? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra,25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 [finding moving defendant may show plaintiff?s lack of evidence by factually devoid discovery responses after plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery]; see Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 80-81 [finding Union Bank rule only applies where discovery requests are broad enough to elicit all such information].)? Once a defendant meets its prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show by reference to specific facts the existence of a triable issue as to that affirmative defense or cause of action.? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff provided factually devoid responses to discovery.? However, contrary to Defendant?s contention, the evidence submitted by Defendant in support of its Motion shows Plaintiff did provide substantive factual responses to Defendant?s discovery requests, while preserving objections.? (See, e.g., Def.?s Exh. B, 5:9-10 & 26-27, 6:14-16, 7:3-4 & 20-22, 8:9-11; Exh. C, 2:24-3:13, 4:11-22, 5:19-6:1, 6:26-7:5, 8:2-11, 9:8-15.)? Although Plaintiff?s response to special interrogatory number 19 is not factually specific because Plaintiff only states that Defendant ?failed to pay all wages owed? to her, Plaintiff can likely supplement with additional facts because facts supporting her claim that Defendant failed to timely pay her all wages earned can be found in her response to special interrogatory number 1. (Def.?s Exh. B, 2:24-3:13 & 6:26-7:5; see Krantz v. BT Visual Images, L.L.C. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 173 [?[T]he moving party?s ?simply pointing to? the absence of evidence supporting plaintiff?s position is not in itself enough to obtain summary judgment in its favor. There must be some ?affirmative showing? by the moving defendant that plaintiff could not obtain such evidence, before summary judgment would be proper.?].? Defendant has not meet its initial burden of showing that Plaintiff?s causes of action have no merit.? The burden does not shift to Plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists.
In any event, there are triable issue of material fact, such as whether Defendant paid all wages owed to Plaintiff (including regular wages, overtime, and double-time premiums) and whether Defendant provided Plaintiff with proper meal and rest periods.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.