- MSJ/MSAI as to HDV on Complaint
Plaintiff?s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, of its Complaint Against Harbor View Development, Inc. (?Motion 1?) is?DENIED.
In Motion 1, Plaintiffs Legacy Property Holdings LLC and 5001 Partners, L.P. (?Plaintiffs?) move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on Plaintiffs? Complaint against Harbor View Development, Inc. (?HVD?).
However, to the extent that Motion 1 purports to seek summary adjudication of any issue, it fails, as it does not comply with C.R.C. 3.1350, as it does not identify any ?issues? to be adjudicated. The Motion thus effectively seeks only summary judgment as to HDV on the Complaint.
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that summary judgment should be granted as to HDV. Plaintiffs? motion is based upon a set of RFA?s that were deemed admitted.? (See UF 13-22, and 29-30, and Motion at pp. 1-3 and 6.) But no evidence as to those RFA?s was filed with the Motion. Plaintiffs evidently intended to submit evidence thereof with a declaration from counsel, but no such declaration was filed with the motion, nor does the proof of service list same.
Mr. Arakelian?s declaration is insufficient to bridge the gap, as it reflects only conclusory statements as to the alleged breach and alleged conversion. Nor does it adequately address the basis for the damages claimed.? The sum stated for the conversion claim also does not comport with the Separate Statement. (Compare Arakelian Decl. ? 17 with UF 31.)
As Plaintiffs have failed to meet their initial burden to produce admissible evidence sufficient to permit judgment in their favor, Motion 1 fails, despite the absence of any opposition.
- MSAI on Cross-Complaint
The Motion for Summary Adjudication with Respect to the First through Fourth Causes of Action in HVD?s Cross-Complaint (?Motion 2?) filed by Cross-Defendants Legacy Property Holdings LLC, 5001 Partners, L.P., Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, is also?DENIED.
Motion 2 fails to comply with C.R.C. 3.1350, as it fails to identify the specific issues to be adjudicated and fails to state each separately in the separate statement.
It also fails on the merits. Motion 2 asserts that no damages can be established on the Cross-Complaint. (MPAs p. 1.)? But the supporting evidence cited for that claim is the same set of RFAs. (Motion pp. 1-2, 6-7; UF 13, 15-22, and 27-28.)??No evidence as to those RFA?s was filed with the Motion, nor does the proof of service list same.?As moving parties have failed to meet their initial burden to produce admissible evidence sufficient to permit summary adjudication in their favor for the causes of action at issue, Motion 2 also fails, despite the absence of any opposition.
Counsel for moving parties is to give notice of these rulings.