Defendant David Mamann’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. CCP § 437c.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted in part. The Court can take judicial notice of the records in the pending action, or in any other action pending in the same court or any other court of record in the U.S. Evid. Code § 452(d). However, judicial notice of other court records and files is limited to matters that are indisputably true. This generally means that judicial notice is limited to the orders and judgments in the other court file, as distinguished from the contents of documents filed therein. The court cannot accept as true the contents of pleadings or exhibits in another action just because they are part of the court record or file. Such documents are inadmissible hearsay. Further, copies of the material to be so noticed must be furnished to the court and to each party. CRC 3.1306(c).

Accordingly, the request for judicial notice as to the file comprising Mobasser v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 11M01004 is denied. The court is not in possession of the file and there is no indication that the moving party ever made arrangements with the clerk to have the file in the courtroom at the time of the hearing. CRC 3.1306(c)(2). The request for judicial notice as to the file comprising Mobasser v. Mamann, Case No. 13K07292 is granted. The request to take judicial notice of architectural drawings of the Ronald Reagan Building is denied. Evid. Code § 452(c).

Plaintiff has also filed evidentiary objections. Most of the objections made are based on lack of foundation and personal knowledge, hearsay, relevancy, and improper legal conclusion. The objections are well-founded. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are sustained in their entirety.

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832. Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. CCP § 437c(p).

Pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2), Defendant has the burden to show that one or more elements of Plaintiff’s cause of action for legal malpractice cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. The burden to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact does not shift to Plaintiff until Defendant has met this initial burden. The Court finds that Defendant has not met his initial burden.

The basic elements of a claim for legal malpractice are:

(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess;
(2) a breach of that duty;
(3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and
(4) actual loss or damage.

Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200.

Defendant is attempting to establish (1) a defense to the claim and (2) that Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of breach of duty and causation. However, Defendant does not offer an expert opinion in support of the motion. “In negligence cases arising from the rendering of professional services, as a general rule the standard of care against which the professional’s acts are measured remains a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. Only their testimony can prove it, unless the lay person’s common knowledge includes the conduct required by the particular circumstances.” Unigard Ins. Group v. O’Flaherty & Belgum (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1239, citing Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001. This also rule applies to legal malpractice cases. Unigard, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1239, citing Jeffer, Mangels & Butler v. Glickman (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1432, 1438-1441.

Defendant discusses the facts in his declaration, but he does not offer expert opinion as to breach of duty or causation. Moreover, Defendant also does not provide the Court with any authority showing that the issues of breach of duty or causation in the legal context are within a lay person’s knowledge such that an expert declaration is not required.

Consequently, this motion is denied as the moving party has not sustained his burden of proof.

Finally, the Court notes that it cannot treat this motion as a motion for summary adjudication. A court cannot grant summary adjudication where the only motion noticed for hearing is for summary judgment. Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial, § 10:45, citing Maryland Cas. Co. v. Reeder (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 961, 974 n.4.

Moving party to give notice.