CASE NAME: DECLAN WOODS? vs.? MARY NOLAN
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY LOUISE WOODS
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendant Louise Woods? motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is denied.? There is a triable issue of fact created by the reasonable inference from Louise Woods? statement to her friend, Bonnie Taylor, in a discussion concerning Plaintiff?s DUI arrest, that ?Now, we are even.?? Taylor?s understanding of this statement is irrelevant; so is the fact that other reasonable inferences are possible.? This court has no power to weigh evidence or inferences.? Therefore, if an inference is controverted by other evidence, or even by other reasonable inferences, there is a ?triable issue of fact,? and the motion must be denied.? See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 856; See Ray v. Silverado Constructors (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1137-39.
As to the statute of limitations, Louise Woods is equitably estopped from asserting this bar.? Louise Woods has repeatedly and consistently denied any involvement in the DUI sting.? Indeed, Louise Woods is moving for summary judgment on that ground herein.? In this situation, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies since a defendant who may have intentionally concealed his or her identity may be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations to defeat an untimely claim.? See Bernson v. Browning-Ferris (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 935.
Plaintiff?s request for judicial notice is ruled on as follows:? RJN of Exhibits E, G, H, O, R, S, W and X is granted.? See Evid. Code 452(d).? RJN of Exhibits F and P is denied.
As to Plaintiff?s evidentiary objections, the court cannot rule on them.? Plaintiff cannot object to a ?fact? or ?facts? (which is the case with Defendant Woods? Separate Statement Fact No. 47, which refers to any number of other Separate Statement facts), but only to the evidence upon which the fact is based.? Plaintiff also does not use the correct format for his objections.? See Rule of Court Rule 3.1354(b)