STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the Complaint, Defendants’ motion to deem matters admitted, and certain of the Court’s Orders in this action is granted. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of documents filed and Orders issued in this action is also granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, 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. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment 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 unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment 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.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment 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. 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 Advance, Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is only required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

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, at 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.)

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.) 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, at 843.)

Discussion

Defendants assert that the following requests have been deemed admitted:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Attached as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Professional Services Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) for the Law Office of Brian H. Turner.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: On October 30, 2020, YOU signed the AGREEMENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: The AGREEMENT states in part: “No guarantees: Nothing in this Agreement and nothing in the Attorney’s statements to Client will be constructed [sic] as a promise or guarantee about the outcome of this matter.”

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: YOU have no evidence that Defendants in the UNDERLYING MATTER were at fault in the subject collision.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: YOU have no evidence that YOU were injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence [in] the UNDERLYING MATTER.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: YOU suffered no injury as a result of the negligence alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: The Propounding Parties did not breach the AGREEMENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: The Propounding Parties did not breach any fiduciary duty owed to YOU in the UNDERLYING MATTER.

(UMFs 9, 10.)

The elements of a legal malpractice cause of action are “(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney’s negligence.” (Ambriz v. Kelegian (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1532.) The causation required in a professional negligence case is “but for” causation, i.e., the plaintiff must establish (in both the litigation and the transactional settings) that “but for” the alleged negligence of the defendant attorney, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action in which the malpractice allegedly occurred. (Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232, 1241- 1242.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s admissions conclusively establish that she has no evidence that Defendants in the Underlying Action were at fault in the subject collision or that she was injured due to their alleged negligence. Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish that she would have obtained a better result in the underlying action, but for Defendants’ negligence.

The Court agrees that via the matters that have been deemed admitted, Plaintiff has admitted she has no evidence that she was injured due to Defendants’ negligence in the underlying

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

matter or the alleged negligence in her Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish actual loss or damage resulting from Defendants’ alleged negligence. Plaintiff’s admissions also establish she cannot maintain her breach of contract cause of action as she has expressly admitted Defendants did not breach the retainer agreement. Lastly, Plaintiff admitted Defendants did not breach any fiduciary duty owed to her in the underlying action. Therefore, Defendants have satisfied their initial burden, and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has opposed. Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities is 22 pages in length, in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. “A memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1113 (g).) The Court has discretion to decline to consider late-filed papers. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1300 (d).) While the Court considered the entirety of the memorandum, Plaintiff in the future must comply with the applicable page limits or obtain an order from the Court allowing Plaintiff to exceed those limits in accordance with the Rules of Court. A failure to comply may lead to adverse rulings.

Plaintiff submits that “Defendants’ motion improperly asks the Court to weigh evidence and accept Defendants’ version of disputed events, which is impermissible at this stage of the proceedings.” (Opposition at 16:5-7.) Plaintiff further asserts triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in representing her in the underlying action and whether they breached their fiduciary duties.

However, it remains undisputed that Plaintiff has admitted, via the matters that have been deemed admitted, that she has no evidence that she was injured due to Defendants’ negligence in the underlying matter or the alleged negligence in her Complaint and that Defendants did not breach the retainer agreement or any fiduciary duty owed. There is no evidence that Plaintiff has moved for relief from the order deeming the requests for admissions admitted, and, thus, the admissions have not been withdrawn. Plaintiff’s declaration and supporting evidence does not create a dispute as to what has been deemed admitted. Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to create a triable issue of material fact.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Defendants shall prepare a formal order complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g) and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

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 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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***