Case Number: BC654691 Hearing Date: March 28, 2018 Dept: 32

Ryan Royten, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Burbank, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC654691

Hearing Date: March 28, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion for Summary judgment, or, in the alternative summary adjudication of issues

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action arising out of the allegedly unlawful search of Plaintiffs’ home and allegedly unlawful seizure of Plaintiff’s medicinal marijuana. Plaintiffs Ryan and Shauna Royten (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants illegally searched their home and vehicles without a warrant on March 5, 2015; submitted falsified and illegally obtained evidence for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant on March 20, 2015; and wrongfully detained Plaintiffs without probable cause, and searched their home on March 24, 2015. Plaintiffs were subsequently transported to Burbank Jail. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants illegally seized Plaintiffs’ medicinal marijuana despite Plaintiffs paperwork authorizing Plaintiffs’ right to cultivate and consume medicinal marijuana. On April 14, 2015, the District Attorney filed criminal counts against Plaintiffs. All charges were dismissed on July 23, 2016. Plaintiffs alleged that on October 18, 2016, Defendants sent a letter acknowledging that Defendants were still in possession of the property seized on March 24, 2015, but that when Plaintiffs attempted to claim the property, Defendants stated that it had been destroyed.

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant City of Burbank; and Defendants Sergeant Ross, Officer Chang, Officer Henneberque, Detective Kendrick, Detective Edwards, Detective Turner, Detective Dickard, Detective Jimenez, Detective Barcus, Detective Brimway, and Detective Baumgarten. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) 42 USC § 1983; (2) failure to train; (3) Monell claim; (4) 42 USC § 1985; (5) 42 USC § 1986; (6) Civ. Code § 51.7; (7) Civ. Code § 52.1; (8) false arrest; (9) conversion; and (10) negligence.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1350(b), “the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” Defendants’ notice of motion seeks summary adjudication on causes of action one through five, and a determination that BPD Officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants’ separate statement does not repeat these causes of action verbatim, as required by CRC Rule 3.1350(b). Rather, Defendants’ separate statement identifies three issues: “Was the search warrant based on probable cause?”; “Were Plaintiffs in violation of the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program?”; and “Did Plaintiffs fail to timely retrieve seized Marijuana?” Based on this discrepancy, the motion is defective and cannot be granted.

The “issues” identified in the separate statement are factual issues, not causes of action. A motion for summary adjudication is only granted “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) The purpose of the separate statement is “to permit the judge to determine quickly whether the motion is supported by sufficient undisputed facts.” (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1234, 1248.) Given the discrepancy between the notice of motion and separate statement, it is unclear what issues Defendants seek to have adjudicated. Assuming that Defendants seek adjudication of the causes of action identified in the notice of motion, it is unclear which facts and evidence are meant to support adjudication of those causes of action. It is Defendants’ responsibility to organize the separate statement in a manner that is clear and concise, and “saves the judge from having to review all the evidentiary materials filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.” (Ibid.)

“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (CCP § 437c(b)(1).) Given the deficiencies on Defendants’ separate statement described above, the Corut exercises its discretion to deny the motion.

The motion for summary judgment/adjudication is DENIED.