2013-00147015-CU-DF

Luis Franco vs. Farmers Rice Cooperative

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Timm, Bruce M.

Defendant Farmers Rice Cooperative’s (“FRC”) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in
the Alternative for Summary Adjudication of Issues is CONTINUED to Wednesday,
June 15, 2016.

Opposing party plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule
3.1350 in the preparation of his Opposition to moving parties’ Separate Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350 requires that “Each material fact claimed by the
moving party to be undisputed must be set out verbatim on the left side of the page,
below which must be set out the evidence said by the moving party to establish that
fact, complete with the moving party’s references to exhibits. On the right side of the
page, directly opposite the recitation of the moving party’s statement of material
facts and supporting evidence, the response must unequivocally state whether
that fact is ‘disputed’ or ‘undisputed.’ An opposing party who contends that a
fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the
fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports
the position that the fact is controverted. That evidence must be supported by
citation to exhibit, title, page, and line numbers in the evidence submitted. Rules
of Court, Rule 3.1350 [Emphasis added.] Rule 3.1350 is the “cookbook” for the
required format.

Here, the plaintiff has only set out on the right side of his separate statement whether
he contends that Material Facts nos. 1 though 29 are undisputed or disputed. The
citations to evidence supporting his position that the facts are disputed are incorrect
and/or incomplete. That evidence must be supported by citation to exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

As to Material Facts nos. 30 through 457, plaintiff has only written “see above”. He has
failed to state whether these facts are disputed or not, and has failed to provide
evidence in support of any disputed facts. “See above” is meaningless, and provides
no required statement of dispute or not, and provides no supporting evidence.

The separate statement serves two important functions in a summary judgment
proceeding: It notifies the parties which material facts are at issue, and it provides a
convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly
disputed facts. A busy trial court’s task is made extremely difficult if a party opposing
summary judgment fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1350, stating
unequivocally whether a fact is undisputed or not and, if not, stating the nature of the
dispute and identifying the evidence supporting its contention. Without question, trial
court has every right to refuse to proceed with a summary judgment motion in the
absence of an adequate separate statement from the opposing party. However, an
immediate grant of summary judgment is, in most instances, too harsh a consequence.
The proper response in most instances, if the trial court is not prepared to address the
merits of the motion in light of the deficient separate statement, is to give the opposing
party an opportunity to file a proper separate statement. No more than this is required.
Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 64, 74.

Plaintiff shall file and serve his Amended Separate Statement, in compliance with Rule
3.1350 not later than Friday, May 20, 2016. No additional papers may be filed by
plaintiff.

Defendant’s Supplemental Reply shall be filed and served not later than Friday, June
3, 2016.

The June 6, 2016 trial date is ordered VACATED. This case is referred to Trial
Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All
counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and
settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court’s web site
at , or by recorded message at 916-874-6098. Plaintiff’s
counsel must notify the court of the selection of Mandatory Settlement Conference and
Trial dates within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/trial-setting. If the parties have not agreed on dates before
the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates
that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the
appropriate Case Management Program Judge

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.