Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Latonia Vaughan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary adjudication against defendant Karma Apartments, LLC (“Karma”) as to all causes of action asserted in Karma’s “Cross-Complaint”[1] is DENIED.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties are directed to notify the clerk and opposing counsel at the time of the request which of moving Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Facts will be addressed at the hearing. The parties should be prepared to point to specific admissible evidence which is claimed to show the existence or non-existence of a triable issue of material fact. ***

Moving counsel failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b), requiring that each issue presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and then repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b). “The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

Moving counsel failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(g), which requires a separate volume of evidence (including all declarations) with a table of contents when the evidence exceeds 25 pages.

Moving counsel failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 3.1350(d)(3), which require the citation to evidence in support of each material fact and each material fact claimed to be disputed include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

numbers.

Background

This action arises out of plaintiff’s prior tenancy at an apartment complex in Sacramento. Plaintiff commenced this action on February 2, 2023. Plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Karma and Blvd Residential, Inc. purports to assert causes of action for Negligence, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Private Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Wrongful Eviction, Constructive Eviction and Uncured Building Violations, seeking inter alia both compensatory and “punative [sic] damages.”

On September 22, 2025, Karma filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff. On November 3, 2025, Karma filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and fraud.

Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of Karma’s “Cross-Complaint” on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because:

1. Karma Apartments, LLC is bound by a court-approved stipulated unlawful detainer judgment resolving the same tenancy and premises, which expressly provides that no rent, no damages, and no attorney’s fees were owed, thereby barring the Cross-Complaint;

2. Karma Apartments, LLC is barred by claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial admissions, and judicial estoppel from asserting claims inconsistent with positions it successfully advanced in the unlawful detainer proceedings;

3. Karma Apartments, LLC cannot establish an essential element of its causes of action — including damages or causation — and has no admissible evidence to support the Cross-Complaint, warranting summary adjudication under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2);

4. The Cross-Complaint is barred as retaliatory under Civil Code section 1942.5, having been filed after Plaintiff engaged in protected habitability-related activity, including reporting violations to Code Enforcement; and

5. To the extent any claims asserted in the Cross-Complaint arose prior to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition, such claims were discharged in bankruptcy and are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

barred as a matter of federal law.

(Notice at p. 2:1-14.)

This matter has not yet been set for trial.

Plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment against Karma. (See Minute Order, dated 5/5/2026.) Plaintiff filed “supplemental” papers in support of that motion which purportedly addressed the allegations in Karma’s Cross-Complaint. (Id., p. 3.) The previous motion was denied. (Id., p. 10) In her moving papers, Plaintiff fails to discuss the prior motion or the grounds for filing this second motion for summary judgment.

Karma opposes the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally and substantively defective.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpled issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [defendant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v.

Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176-177.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850 [quoting Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2)].) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854-855, n.23; Addy v. Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.) Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); See generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. One of these differences is that California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350, subdivision (b) mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Another difference is that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. Code of Civil Procedure §437c, subdivision (f)(1) provides in its entirety:

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 or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. 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.

Finally, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Id. at p. 252 [citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1].)

Finally, in ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.)

Discussion

A trial court has the power to “exercise a reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it. Such power necessarily exists as one of the inherent powers of the court and such power should be exercised by the courts in order to insure the orderly administration of justice.” (Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 260, 264.) This inherent power also extends to the consideration of summary judgment motions. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 289-290; see also Reeves v.

Safeway Stores, Inc. 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 106 [“trial courts have the inherent power to strike proposed ‘undisputed facts’ that fail to comply with the statutory requirements and that are formulated so as to impede rather than aid an orderly determination of whether the case presents triable material issues of fact.”].) “The deficiencies in summary judgment papers can appear in a variety of places, and the approaches taken by the courts to address the deficiencies can vary as well, limited only by the inspiration or creativity of the particular law and motion judge-and, of course, due process.” (Nazir, at p. 290.)

In most instances in ruling on motions submitted to the Court, the Court merely notes in the tentative ruling the deficiencies in the moving and opposing papers and proceeds to conduct its review and adjudication since generally those deficiencies do not impede the Court’s review. In this instance, as will be discussed below, Plaintiff has submitted moving papers and a separate statement that are so defective that the Court believes they merit comment and warrant that the Court exercise the inherent control and discretion established in Nazir.

First, Plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b), which requires that each issue presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and then repeated verbatim in the separate statement. “The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) Plaintiff’s notice of motion purports to set forth five issues for summary adjudication, as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

stated above. However, none of these issues appear verbatim in Plaintiff’s separate statement. Instead, Plaintiff’s separate statement identifies the issues as “GROUND ONE — UNLAWFUL DETAINER STIPULATED JUDGMENT / NO DAMAGES,” “GROUND TWO — FAILURE OF PROOF / NO ADMISSIBLE DAMAGES EVIDENCE,” “GROUND THREE — RETALIATION / CIV. CODE § 1942.5,” “GROUND FOUR — JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL / INCONSISTENT POSITIONS,” and “GROUND FIVE — BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE.” Because it is moving party’s sole responsibility to comply with the California Rules of Court in its moving papers, the Court, in its discretion, denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication in its entirety pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1).

Second, Plaintiff failed to file any evidence in support of her motion, such as affidavits, declarations, admissions, interrogatory answers, depositions, or a request for judicial notice in support of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(c)(4); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Although Plaintiff’s separate statement references evidence, no such evidence was presented to the Court. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file a request for judicial notice in connection with the instant motion. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to meet her initial burden of production in that she has provided no evidence for the Court to evaluate in connection with the instant motion. This is a sufficient, independent ground upon which to deny the motion.

Third, Plaintiff also fails to meet her burden of persuasion as she does not reference a single undisputed material fact (“UMF”) or item of evidence in her moving papers. Thus, it is not clear that any of the asserted UMFs are actually material to the motion or that her evidence is sufficient to meet her initial burden. This is also grounds to deny the motion.

Fourth, Plaintiff’s moving papers repeatedly assert that she moves for summary adjudication against Karma’s “Cross-Complaint.” However, as discussed above, Karma has filed a First Amended Cross Complaint, which is now the operative cross-complaint. “Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131.) “[O]nce an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint.” (Ibid.) Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is directed at Karma’s “Cross-Complaint” rather than its First Amended Cross-Complaint, the motion is moot, as the Cross-Complaint has been superseded by the filing of a First Amended Cross- Complaint.

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied because it does not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

sufficiently address and satisfy the standards of Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2). “[A] party is prohibited from making, and the trial court from granting, a motion for reconsideration unless the requirements of [Code of Civil Procedure] sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008 are satisfied.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212 [emphasis added] [citing Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096, 1108].) Plaintiff does not even attempt to argue that she may bring a second motion for summary adjudication against Karma on “grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” (Notice at 2:1-2) when she previously sought summary judgment against Karma on the same grounds “there is no triable issue of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (11/17/2025 Notice of Motion ISO Summary Judgment, p.1:17 22.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) provides in its entirety:

A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. However, a party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court, unless that party establishes to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion. (Emphasis added.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) limits the reconsideration of summary judgment/adjudication motions “unless the [moving] party establishes to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law...” This “prohibition against repeated summary judgment motions was added to make the summary judgment process more efficient and to reduce the opportunities for abuses of the procedure.” (Bagley v. TRW, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1096, fn.3.)

As long as the second motion truly contains “newly discovered facts” and is not merely a “reformatted, condensed, and cosmetically repackaged” version of its first motion, the court will have discretion to consider it. (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 821, 827 [applying Bagley, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 1097 (second motion showed no new law and no new material facts in separate statement)].) Thus, a second motion may be allowed if it is based on newly discovered facts that were not included in the first motion. (Patterson, supra, at p. 827 [citing Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 726, 739]; Bagley, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 1097; Pender v. Radin (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1811-12 [holding that a second motion for summary adjudication was proper because it was based on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D

newly-discovered facts from depositions taken in discovery after the first motion for summary adjudication was denied]; Marshall v. County of San Diego (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1106-07 [a court has the authority to permit a party to file a second motion for summary adjudication, as long as it is “supported by evidence that was not presented in connection with the prior motion”].)

Further, as long as the second motion presents issues different from those presented in the first motion, the second motion can satisfy section 437c, subdivision (f)(2). (Patterson, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 [holding that the second motion complied with section 437c(f)(2) because although “both motions for summary judgment involved ‘duty’ in a general sense, the District’s two motions were not identical and involved different legal theories. The first motion focused on whether there was a statutory basis for imposing a duty; the second motion focused on whether the common law defense of assumption of risk applied to negate any claim of duty”].)

Thus, a second motion for summary judgment must also be based on issues that were not raised in the previous motion that was denied. (Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 72 [insurer’s earlier motion did not address plaintiff’s fraud in obtaining coverage, which was basis for later motion].)

The question before the Court is whether this motion for summary adjudication does more than repackage the same issues and arguments raised in Plaintiff’s original summary judgment motion and whether it presents newly discovered facts. Again, it was Plaintiff’s burden to clearly address and establish a basis for such a finding. Plaintiff makes no attempt to meet that burden. Plaintiff’s failure to present sufficient legal argument and authority to show she is entitled to bring this second motion for summary adjudication given that she has already previously moved for summary judgment against Karma is another, alternative basis to deny the motion.

In light of these deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court need not proceed further.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, Karma shall prepare an appropriate order which conforms to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (g).

[1] The Court notes that Defendant Karma filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint on

11/3/2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16D