Case Name: Prospect Mortgage, LLC v. David Shumard, et al.

Case No.: 1-12-CV-231227

Motion by Cross-defendants Prospect Mortgage, LLC, and Prospect Holding Co., LLC (collectively “Prospect”) for summary judgment or [sic] in the alternative, summary adjudication on the Second Amended Cross-complaint of Cross-complainants David Shumard, Jerry Shumard, and John Telesco (collectively “Cross-complainants”)

A. Motion to Seal

Prospect’s motion to seal is unopposed and GRANTED. However, the proposed form of order is deficient. Prospect is required to submit a proposed form of order fully compliant with Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, including specific findings.

B. Evidentiary Objections

The evidentiary objections by Cross-complainants are not code-compliant and are OVERRULED. (See id., rule 3.1354(c).) Prospect’s Objections No 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-12 are SUSTAINED, and Objections No. 4, 6, and 9 are OVERRULED.

Prospect’s request for judicial notice in connection with the reply is DENIED for lack of relevance.

C. Summary Judgment

Cross-complainants present evidence that Prospect engaged in unfair business practices and that they did not just voluntarily leave their jobs at Prospect Mortgage, LLC, to go elsewhere to make more money. (David Shumard Decl., 2:19-3:10; 3:18-27; 4:6-5:24; Jerry Shumard Decl., 2:27-3:10; John Telesco Decl., 2:19-3:10; 3:18-26; 4:5-13; 4:23-5:11.) This evidence raises a triable issue of material fact to warrant denial of the motion for summary judgment.

Prospect’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

D. Summary Adjudication

In the alternative, Prospect seeks summary adjudication as to six issues. This approach is not within the procedure contemplated by section 473c(f), and Prospect has not complied with section 473c(s). Accordingly, the motion in the alternative is denied.