2008-00004192-CU-PT

People of the State of CA vs. $298.85 (Brown)

Nature of Proceeding:     Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By:   Pongratz, A.J.

Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED.

First, Petitioner has failed to meet its initial burden of producing evidence
demonstrating the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (See Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 845, 850.) All of the undisputed material
facts set forth in the separate statement are based upon requests for admissions that
Petitioner propounded to Real Party in Interest. The court notes that it granted
Petitioner’s motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted on June 15, 2011,
and ruled that the requests for admissions would be deemed admitted unless Real
Party in Interest served proper responses prior to the hearing. Notwithstanding this
ruling, Petitioner’s moving papers do not contain any evidence demonstrating that Real
Party in Interest in fact failed to serve responses prior to the hearing and that the
requests for admissions were deemed admitted. To the contrary, Petitioner now
requests that, “[s]hould the court grant Petitioner’s Motion that Request [sic] for
Admissions be Deemed Admitted, Petitioner sets forth the following Separate
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence.” (Motion at 2:1-3.)
Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Real Party in Interest admitted any
of the requests for admissions cited in the separate statement by failing to serve
responses prior to the hearing, Petitioner has failed to meet its initial burden of
producing evidence demonstrating the nonexistence of any triable issue of material
fact,
and the motion must be denied.

Second, Petitioner has failed to meet its initial burden of production because its
separate statement does not address all of the elements necessary to establish that it
is entitled to judgment in this civil forfeiture action. In moving for summary judgment, a
“plaintiff…has met his burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if
he has proved each element of the cause of action entitling him to judgment on that
cause of action.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 849 [internal quotation marks omitted].)
“The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make
a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact…A prima
facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in
question.” (Id. at 850-851.) Moreover, “from commencement to conclusion, the party
moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable
issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. (Id. at
850.) “[H]ow the parties moving for, and opposing, summary judgment may each carry
their burden of persuasion and/or production depends on which would bear what
burden of proof at trial…Thus, if a plaintiff who would bear the burden of proof by a
preponderance of evidence at trial moves for summary judgment, he must present
evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material
fact more likely than not–otherwise, he would not be entitled  to judgment as a matter
of law, but would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact.” (Id. at 851 [emphasis
in original].)

Judgment in a civil forfeiture action requires proof of two elements, namely that (1) the
property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11470, and (2) the
person claiming an interest in the seized property knew or should have known of facts
which made the property subject to forfeiture under § 11470. (People v. $241,600
United States Currency (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1114; see also People v.
Superior Court (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409, 419 [“To obtain forfeiture, the government
must show at the hearing that: ‘the owner of any interest in the seized property
consented to the use of the property with knowledge that it would be or was used for a
purpose for which forfeiture is permitted,’ (§ 11488.5, subd. (d)(1)), and the property
was so used (§ 11488.5, subd. (e))”].) Petitioner in the instant case has not
demonstrated in its separate statement that Real Party in Interest knew or should have
known facts rendering the property subject to forfeiture.

A party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must support the
motion with a separate statement that sets forth plainly and concisely all material facts
that the moving party contends are undisputed, and each of these material facts must
be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. (CCP § 437c(b)(1), (f)(2).) The
moving party’s separate statement must be in the two-column format set forth in CRC
3.1350(h). It must separately identify each cause of action, claim, issue of duty or
affirmative defense, and each supporting material fact claimed to be undisputed
relating to the cause of action, claim, issue of duty or affirmative defense. (CRC 3.1350
(d).)

Because the first column in Petitioner’s separate statement does not include a fact
establishing the second element necessary to obtain judgment for civil forfeiture, i.e.,
that Real Party in Interest knew or should have known facts rendering the property
subject to forfeiture, the court exercises its discretion and denies the motion. (San
Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 313-316;
accord King v. United Parcel Svc., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 437, 438.)

Finally, the court denies the motion because Petitioner has submitted a mandatory
memorandum of points and authorities without any statement of facts and that is
virtually devoid of analysis or citation to the governing statutory scheme or other
relevant legal authorities. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850; CRC 3.1113(b) [a
memorandum of points and authorities must contain “a statement of facts, a concise
statement of law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes,
cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced”].) Rather than
enumerate the legal elements that it must prove to obtain summary judgment, or
explain how the facts set forth in the separate statement establish such elements,
Petitioner merely cites the summary judgment statute and asserts that, should the
court deem the requests for admissions to be admitted, then there will be no triable
issue of fact or defense to the action. (Motion at 6:14-21.) Although memoranda of
points and authorities that are concise are encouraged, Petitioner may not completely
rely on the court to perform the legal analysis in the first instance.

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