Case Name:   Doyle v. Inframesh, Inc., et al.

Case No.:       1-12-CV-233186

Plaintiff Hale Doyle (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary judgment.  Plaintiff’s motion focuses on the fact that Plaintiff paid $75,000 to defendant Inframesh, Inc. for stock and did not receive the stock.  Plaintiff provides evidence supporting his arguments with regard to the stock purchase.  (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiffs [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment, Nos. 1-4.)  The problem with Plaintiff’s motion, however, is that Plaintiff moves only for summary judgment, not summary adjudication, and Plaintiff only addresses the stock purchase issue in his papers.  A court cannot grant summary adjudication as to part of a pleading where a party has only noticed a motion for summary judgment.  (See Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 949.)  The Complaint sets forth a cause of action for accounting, but Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment does not address this cause of action and no evidence is provided or cited to in the separate statement in connection with the cause of action for accounting.  Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet his initial burden on summary judgment.

Further, Plaintiff provides evidence that defendants have made certain payments to him since the Stock Purchase Agreement was signed in 2008.  (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiffs [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment, No. 7.)  Consequently, the evidence does not establish the exact amount of damages allegedly owed to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not met his initial burden and the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.