2013-00141372-CU-PA

Janice Mollring vs. Scott Leland Norton

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

Filed By:   Koyama, Julie K.

Defendant Blane Norton’s motion for summary judgment is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these
documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents.
th
(See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4   543, 590 [judicial
notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v.
th
Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4   112, 120-121.)

This action arises out of an automobile accident which occurred on April 18, 2011, on
southbound SR-99 on the Mack Road exit in Sacramento County, California. Plaintiff
filed a complaint against defendant Scott Norton on April 4, 2013. Plaintiff then
amended her complaint, substituting Blane Norton (hereinafter “Defendant”) as a
fictitious “Doe 1” defendant on August 14, 2013, which is nearly 4 months after the
applicable two year statute of limitations expired.

Defendant  moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s action is barred
by the two-year statute of limitations.   (See California Code of Civil Procedure
§335.1).

Defendant has the initial burden of proof in a summary judgment motion to show that
cause of action has no merit or that there are one or more complete defenses to them.
th
(Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4   733, 743.)   After Defendant satisfies his initial
burden, the burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that a triable issue of material
fact exists.

Defendant, however, fails to satisfy his initial burden to demonstrate that there is no
triable issue as to any material fact because he fails to proffer evidence in support of
his motion.  For example, UMFs  6-10 in Defendant’s separate statement refer to
Exhibits D, E, F, and G (Deposition Testimony of Janice Mollring, identified as Exhibits
to the Declaration of  Julie K. Koyama).  The Court notes, however, that the copy of
Ms. Koyama’s  declaration filed with the Court does not include the referenced
exhibits.

Thus, Defendant fails to satisfy his initial burden and the burden does not shift to
Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

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