2016-00194980-CU-PO
Margretta Cannon vs. City of Sacramento
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment
Filed By: Velasquez, Andrea M.
Defendant City of Sacramento’s motion for summary judgment is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED, as follows.
Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1116(b), requiring deposition transcripts cited as evidence include the cover page plusonlythe relevant pages, and Rule 3.1350(g), requiring asinglevolume of evidence (includingdeclarations) with a table of contents when the evidence exceeds 25 pages.
This is a personal injury action arising out of a trip-and-fall incident which occurred while plaintiff was walking on a public sidewalk in South Natomas. Defendant City now moves for summary judgment on the ground that the entire complaint is barred by the “trivial defect” doctrine/defense and/or that plaintiff cannot establish City had prior to her injury actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect in sufficient time to address the alleged defect. Contending that there are no triable issues of material fact, defendant City maintains it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court finds that defendant City has satisfied its initial burden of production under
Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2), which thereby shifts to plaintiff the burden to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact relative to one or more of the grounds asserted in the motion. Since plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion and failed to present any evidence whatsoever, plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)
(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant City is entitled to summary judgment on the entire complaint as prayed for in the moving papers.
Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving counsel to prepare a judgment of dismissal as to defendant City only.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)