Rush v. White Corp.
A145758
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Spanish Peaks: a luxury Montana development; five plaintiffs bought 13 lots/cabins (many later lost by foreclosure) and sued alleging fraud, negligent construction/remediation, and nondisclosure of landslide/geotechnical hazards.
- Plaintiffs sued several Dolan-related entities (Dolan, Voyager, Spanish Peaks Realty, American Land Development) but not bankrupt developer Holdings; four plaintiffs held title via LLCs though sued in their individual names.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment/adjudication, filing a detailed separate statement with 338 undisputed facts and witness declarations showing (among other things) geotechnical testing finding Phase 3A buildable and that many losses resulted from financial defaults/foreclosures.
- Plaintiffs filed an overlong, noncompliant opposition and a 155‑page (then supplemented) responsive separate statement lacking required pinpoint citations, forcing the court to repeatedly order compliance under CRC 3.1350.
- After multiple opportunities and orders to cure deficiencies, the trial court granted summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ persistent failure to comply with separate‑statement rules; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting SJ based on procedural noncompliance | Rush et al.: Court should not enter judgment solely for citation technicalities; plaintiffs had provided pinpoint cites in their Additional Material Facts | Defs: Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to provide required pinpoint citations despite orders and opportunities to cure; noncompliance justified ruling | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly granted SJ after warnings and chances to comply |
| Whether defendants met prima facie burden on SJ (duty/causation/standing) | Plaintiffs: Defs did not disprove plaintiffs’ claims or shift burden; ample evidence exists of Dolan/others’ involvement and duties | Defs: Submitted evidence negating duty, causation, and showing many sales were "as‑is"; several plaintiffs lacked standing/ownership; losses due to foreclosure/financial defaults | Court found defendants presented sufficient grounds shifting burden; plaintiffs failed to adequately oppose on the merits due to procedural failures |
| Whether separate‑statement volume/format justified SJ (Parkview/Collins guidance) | Plaintiffs: Some facts were marshalled in plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts; court should cross‑reference rather than sanction | Defs: Plaintiffs’ format forced court to wade through thousands of pages, violating CRC 3.1350 | Court followed precedent (gave chances to cure; then granted SJ when noncompliance persisted) |
| Whether discovery/nonproduction issues warranted denial or reversal | Plaintiffs: Defendants refused to comply with discovery/orders (e.g., PMK), prejudicing opposition | Defs: Discovery complaints were not a basis to deny or reverse SJ and were not sufficiently raised below | Appellate court declined to reverse on discovery grounds; issues not properly presented or persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (explains summary judgment burden‑shifting framework)
- Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 133 Cal.App.4th 1197 (trial court may require proper separate statement and may refuse to rule on deficient oppositions; gives guidance on remedial process)
- Collins v. Hertz Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 64 (affirmed SJ where opposing party repeatedly failed to comply with separate‑statement rules after being given opportunity to cure)
- Garcin, United Community Church v. Garcin, 231 Cal.App.3d 327 (discusses purpose and efficiency goals of separate statements in SJ practice)
- Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 170 Cal.App.4th 554 (notes failure to comply with separate‑statement rules can justify SJ in court’s discretion)
- Batarse v. Service Employees Internat. Union, Local 1000, 209 Cal.App.4th 820 (addresses court discretion to grant SJ where opposing party fails to meet separate‑statement requirements)