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 nos.
1-10 that Petitioner propounded to Real Party in Interest. The court notes that granted
it 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. Petitioner, however,
failed to include a complete copy of the request for admissions. The moving papers
only include request nos. 1-2.

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.)

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. 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.