JASON VISCARRA VS. ELLEN POON ET AL

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 23, 2026. Line 3.2. PLAINTIFF JASON VISCARRA Notice Of Motion For Relief From Judgment And/Or Reconsideration Of Order Granting Summary Jdugment Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 473(B) And 1008(A) is DENIED without prejudice.

The Court denies the motion without prejudice as it has concerns regarding Plaintiff's ability to follow instructions and pursue this relief to resolution. The Court has previously provided Plaintiff an opportunity "to file a coherent, well-organized and properly supported motion (including notice of motion, motion, points and authorities and evidence)" on May 7, 2026. Plaintiff had over a month to do so.

What the Court received was a June 25, 2026 filing, which: (1) did not list the relief requested in the body of the Notice of the Motion as required by CRC; (2) did not properly list the hearing date: caption states "July 23, 026" and body of the Notice states "July 23, in Department 501;" (3) did not specify whether mandatory or discretionary relief is sought; (4) does not provide evidence in support of the motion; (5) did not identify the Exhibits, which are attached directly to the brief; and (6) did not address any of the issues the Court raised in its May 7, 2026 ruling. The filing seemed rushed and incomplete. Additionally, no reply was filed.

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was fully briefed as of July 14, 2025. This briefing included moving papers, opposition and reply. Opposition papers were filed on July 2, 2025 and consisted of: Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of Justin Graham with Exs. A and B described therein and attached thereto; Opposition to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.

The motion had been transferred and continued from its originally noticed hearing date/department, and was reviewed on the merits prior to October 7, 2025 continued hearing date. On October 7, 2025 the Cout directed the opposing party to fix and re-file one of its submissions in opposition to the motion for summary judgment by October 13, 2025. Specifically, Opposition to the Separate Statement filed on July 2, 2025, was not code-compliant. The Opposition to Separate Statement failed to indicate which facts are "disputed" and which are "undisputed" as required by CCP 437c and CRC 3.1350(f)(2).

Some facts were "admitted;" the response to some other facts was a variation of the following verbiage "Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of ...and can neither admit nor dispute this statement" (e.g. Issue 1, Facts 5, 6, 7, etc,); some facts were "disputed." The only filing to be made by October 13, 2025 was "a code complaint separate statement in opposition to motion. CRC 3.1350(f)(2) ." The Court did not authorize any more filings in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

On October 14, 2025 Plaintiff filed an Amended Opposition to Separate Statement. (Note: It appears that Plaintiff attempted to make this filing on October 13, 2025, but it was rejected because the hearing time listed on the document was incorrect). Properly, and in compliance with the Court's October 7, 2025 ruling, there were no other filings accompanying this Amended Opposition to the Separate Statement. There could have been no other filings because the Court did not authorize any in its October 7, 2025 ruling, and the record does not reflect any requests or orders authorizing any additional filings. ***continued to part 2*** | |