Unknown v. Unknown

or defense when the case comes to trial. After trial, judgment must be awarded "as established by the summary proceeding provided for in this section." [CCP Sec. 437c(k) (emphasis added)]

A summary adjudication order is not appealable. Nor does an appeal lie where plaintiff dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice in exchange for a waiver of the statute of limitations. Such "artifice" does not create an appealable judgment (see P. 10:385). But an order denying or granting summary adjudication is immediately reviewable, in the court of appeal's discretion, by petition for writ of mandate.

Defendant's motion, as noted above, would completely dispose of the case and result in a final judgment. It is therefore one for summary judgment, not summary adjudication, despite its title. While Defendant provides evidence with its motion that was not presented in connection with its prior motion, the evidence is not "newly discovered." The evidence is merely newly obtained, but because the evidence consists entirely of declarations from SCGC's employees, it is, by definition, not newly discovered. The Court finds the renewed motion is not permitted under Sec.437c(f)(2) and Sec.437c(a)(4), and the motion is summarily denied.

3. Motion for Relief from Jury Trial Waiver

On 5/22/26, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from jury trial waiver. Plaintiff was obligated to post jury fees prior to the holding of a CMC, and in no event more than 365 days after filing the case. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff argues he should be relieved of this failure per CCP Sec.631. Plaintiff notes that he posted the fees upon discovery of the failure to pay the fees. The Rutter Guide on Civil Procedure Before Trial, Sec.12:325, et seq., explains that relief from failure to timely pay jury fees is favored, and that inadvertent failure to timely pay fees coupled with a timely motion for waiver must be granted absent prejudice to the opposing party. Defendant has not opposed the motion, and has therefore not shown prejudice. The 10/05/26 trial is scheduled as a jury trial, and will remain so scheduled. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

judgment on Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs failed to timely file opposition papers, which were due on 8/12/26. Plaintiffs filed grossly untimely opposition papers on 8/19/26. Plaintiffs seek relief via CCP Sec.473(b) for their failure to file timely opposition papers. As this Court has repeatedly admonished Plaintiffs' attorneys, CCP Sec.473(b) creates the right to file a motion seeking relief, but nothing in the statute contemplates the Court ordering such relief in connection with opposition papers, and Plaintiffs have cited no case interpreting the statute in this manner. The Court has disregarded the late-filed papers. The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file a Sec.473(b) motion if they have grounds to do so.

Recently, in Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 478, 508, the Court of Appeals considered a situation where a plaintiff failed to file an opposing separate statement prior to the hearing on the defendant's motion. The Mandell-Brown Court noted, "Thus, if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under subdivision (b)(3) to grant the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim." The Court has reviewed the moving papers and finds they are not deficient on their face. In light of the lack of opposition and an opposing separate statement, the Court grants the motion.

Recently, in 24LBCV02791, the Court admonished Plaintiffs' attorney as follows: The Court notes that there have been numerous motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication filed by Honda in various cases without opposition. The Court asks Plaintiff's attorney to dismiss any case or cause of action the plaintiff does not intend to pursue. Requiring the Court to rule on unopposed motions is not an efficient use of judicial resources. Despite this admonishment, Plaintiffs have neither dismissed the action nor opposed the motion. Again, the motion is granted. All future hearing dates, including the upcoming motions, FSC, and trial date, are vacated. Defendant is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal for processing within five days. The Court will hold the proposed judgment for five days for objections. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV02477 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27 1.

Background

Facts Plaintiffs, Solia Imex LLC and Can Yilmaz filed this action against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. for violations of Song-Beverly.

2. Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection

On 5/11/26, Defendant served Plaintiff with a demand for inspection of vehicle, setting the date of inspection for 6/18/26. On 6/10/26,