Carrie Miller v. Varun Bajaj

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 415) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 415 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEPARTMENT | 415 | HEARING DATE | August 24, 2026 | CASE NUMBER |

| MOTION | Motion for Summary Judgment | MOVING PARTY | Defendant Varun Bajaj | OPPOSING PARTY | Plaintiff Carrie Miller | BACKGROUND Defendant Varun Bajaj ("Defendant") moves for summary adjudication on the operative complaint of Plaintiff Carrie Miller ("Plaintiff"), and for summary adjudication on the causes of action therein.

Plaintiff's opposition to the motion is procedurally defective in several respects. In Plaintiff's separate statement in support of the opposition, Plaintiff does not "set out verbatim" "[e]ach material fact claimed by the moving party to be undisputed" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f)(1)), "unequivocally state whether" each "fact is 'disputed' or 'undisputed'" (id., rule 3.1350(f)(2)), cite "the nature of the dispute" and "the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted" as to each fact Plaintiff contends is in dispute (ibid.), and "include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers" for the evidence (ibid.). Additionally, Plaintiff's separate statement is not in the required format. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(h).)

The Court could grant Defendant's motion because of these procedural deficiencies. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(3) [failure to comply with the separate statement requirements of section 437c "may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion"]; see also Greenwood v. F.A.A. (1994) 28 F.3d 71, 977 ['"[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs"].)

Nonetheless, the Court will exercise its discretion and permit Plaintiff to correct the procedural deficiencies noted above. Accordingly, at the hearing of the motion, the Court will continue the matter for that purpose. Plaintiff is to file a new separate statement in opposition to the motion which complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350. The Court does not authorize Plaintiff to file new evidence or a new memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion. Defendant may file a supplemental reply limited to issues raised by evidence cited in the new separate statement. The parties are to file and serve these documents pursuant to the deadlines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

Case Number: 24STCV27659 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 415 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 415 | HEARING DATE | August 24, 2026 | CASE NUMBER | 24STCV27659 | MOTION | Motion to Compel Deposition | MOVING PARTY |