Case Name: Carol Tyler v. Paja Investments, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 1-14-CV-270704

Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication by Defendant Paja Investments, LLC

On or about July 19, 2013, plaintiff Carol Tyler (“Tyler”) fell as a result of dangerous condition while descending a staircase at 1100 Lincoln Avenue in San Jose “Premises”). (Complaint, ¶GN-1; Attachment, ¶3.) The delineation between the lobby floor and the step appurtenant thereto was difficult to see as one descends the staircase, and the handrail did not extend fully [and did] not assist in the descending of the stairs. (Id.) Defendant Paja Investments, LLC (“Paja”) possessed, designed, constructed, controlled, repaired, managed, leased, rented, and owned the Premises. (Complaint, ¶GN-1; Attachment, ¶2.)

On September 17, 2014, plaintiff Tyler filed a Judicial Council form complaint against defendant Paja asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability. On December 22, 2014, defendant Paja filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 13, 2016, defendant Paja filed this motion for partial summary adjudication.

On July 5, 2016, plaintiff Tyler filed opposition to defendant Paja’s motion.

Discussion

IV. Defendant Paja’s motion for partial summary adjudication is DENIED.

In its notice of motion, defendant Paja moves for “partial summary judgment” “on the ground that judicial estoppel bars Plaintiff from claiming more damages in this case than she disclosed to the bankruptcy court.” More specifically, as explained in its memorandum of points and authorities, plaintiff Tyler filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy but only disclosed this action to be valued at $15,000. Consequently, defendant Paja contends it is entitled to summary adjudication “regarding plaintiff’s damages claimed in excess of $15,000.”

Defendant Paja cites, as the statutory basis for the requested relief, Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) which states, “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Emphasis added.)

The statute does not authorize the relief being sought. The language of the summary adjudication statute suggests a claim for damages may be summarily adjudicated only if it pertains to punitive damages. This is so because of the reference to the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. To read it otherwise would render the reference to Civil Code section 3294 superfluous.

Even the practice guide authors limit this type of summary adjudication to a claim for punitive damages. (Weil & Brown, CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶¶10:41 – 10:43, p. 10-12 citing Catalano v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91 (Catalano).) In Catalano, the court reiterated the policy behind summary adjudication motions and stated, “The purpose of the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) was to stop the practice of piecemeal adjudication of facts that did not completely dispose of a substantive area.” (Catalano, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 97.)

Such an interpretation is also supported by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t) which states, in relevant part, “Notwithstanding subdivision (f), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision.” (Emphasis added.)

Notwithstanding the reference to Civil Code section 3294, Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) only allows summary adjudication “if it completely disposes of … a claim for damages.” Defendant Paja requests relief which does not completely dispose of plaintiff Tyler’s claim for damages. The only avenue for such relief is to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t) which defendant has not done here.

For the above stated reasons, defendant Paja’s motion for partial summary adjudication is DENIED.