Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV36603, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36603    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff City of Monterey Park (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff initiated this eminent domain action on November 18, 2022 against Defendants Center Int’l Investments Inc. (“CII”), S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, County of Los Angeles, and all persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in or to the property sought to be condemned. As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to acquire the real property located at 1688 Garvey Avenue belonging to Defendant CII. The purpose of the acquisition is to stabilize the site as part of the “Goodviews Abatement Project.”

            On January 6, 2023, CII filed its answer to the complaint, asserting seven affirmative defenses that include the following: (1) failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; (2) unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct; (3) failure to deposit adequate deposit; (4) improper use of eminent domain; (5) cost of an independent appraisal; (6) failure to plan in manner most compatible with greatest public good and least private injury; and (7) violation of CEQA. On March 24, 2023, CII voluntarily dismissed its third and seventh affirmative defenses.

            On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary adjudication (the “Motion”), on the ground that there are no triable issues of material fact concerning CII’s first, fourth and sixth affirmative defenses because they are meritless as a matter of law.

            As of April 26, 2024, the Court has not received any opposition from CII.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of this Court’s ruling issued on February 21, 2023 of Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Possession of the Property in this case. (See RJN.) The Court grants this request pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must prove each element of the cause of action.  (Code Civ Proc., §¿437c, subd. (p)(1).)  When moving for summary adjudication of an affirmative defense, a plaintiff has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that that the affirmative defense is without merit.  (Continental Ins. Co. v. Columbus Line, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1190, 1199-1200.)  After the plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.  (Code Civ Proc., §¿437c, subd. (p)(1).)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Issue No. 1: First Affirmative Defense

            Plaintiff asserts that CII’s first affirmative defense entitled “Does Not State Sufficient Facts to Constitute a Cause of Action” is meritless as a matter of law because CII has conceded in its response to one of Plaintiff’s requests for admissions that the pleadings sufficiently state a cause of action for eminent domain. (UMF Nos. 4-6.)  The trial court “give[s] great weight to admissions made in discovery and disregard[s] contradictory and self-serving affidavits of the party.”  (Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078 at 1087.) Furthermore, a party is bound to their clear and unequivocal admissions made during discovery. (D’Amico v. Board of Med. Exam’rs (1974) 11 Cal.3d. 1, 21.) Thus, because CII has admitted through discovery that Plaintiff’s complaint has been sufficiently pleaded, Plaintiff has met its burden in showing that CII’s first affirmative defense lacks merits.

            Because Plaintiff has met its burden, the burden now shifts to CII to show that there is a triable issue of material fact regarding its first affirmative defense. Because no opposition has been filed, CII has failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of the first affirmative defense is granted.

Issue No. 2: Fourth Affirmative Defense

            Plaintiff asserts that CII’s fourth affirmative defense entitled “Improper Use of Eminent Domain” is meritless as a matter of law because it is devoid of any facts and discovery has not uncovered any facts to support this affirmative defense.

             A party is entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain if it is authorized by statute to do so, and if the proposed project for which the property is sought meets certain statutory requirements. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.020, 1240.030.) “The power of eminent domain may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed project only if all of the following are established: (a) The public interest and necessity require the project. (b) The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1240.030.)  “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a resolution of necessity adopted by the governing body of the public entity pursuant to this article conclusively establishes the matters referred to in Section 1240.030.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.250(a).) 

            Here, Plaintiff presents the following evidence in support of its motion for summary adjudication of the fourth affirmative defense. Prior to initiating this action, Plaintiff’s City Council adopted Resolution of Necessity No. 2022-R80 on October 5, 2022 after a noticed public hearing. (UMF No. 17.) The Resolution declared that it was a public interest to acquire the subject property under Articles I, §19 and XI, § 7, of the California Constitution and related statutes in order to complete the Goodviews Abatement Project, and this project is compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (Ibid.) Plaintiff further asserts that, during the course of discovery, CII has failed to identify any facts that would undermine the findings made in the Resolution. (UMF Nos. 10-14.)

            Upon review of Plaintiff’s evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden in showing that CII’s fourth affirmative defense lacks merit. Based on CII’s discovery responses, it is clear that it lacks any evidence to show Plaintiff’s City Council abused its discretion in adopting the Resolution. (City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC (“Marina Towers”) (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93, 114 [reasoning that abuse of discretion “occurs [only] where the public agency acts arbitrarily or capriciously, renders findings that are lacking in evidentiary support, or fails to follow the required procedures and give the required notices before condemning the property.”].) Instead, CII merely claims that Plaintiff has no legitimate reason to take the subject property pursuant to the doctrine of eminent domain and that Plaintiff has pursued a foreclosure action to acquire the property. (UMF No. 11.) Thus, there is no evidence to undermine the presumption that the Resolution was supported by substantial evidence.

            Because Plaintiff has met its burden, the burden now shifts to CII to show that there is a triable issue of material fact that the adoption of the Resolution was an abuse of discretion. Because no opposition has been filed, CII has failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of the fourth affirmative defense is granted. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court declines to address Plaintiff’s alternative argument for summary adjudication of this affirmative defense.

Issue No. 3: Sixth Affirmative Defense

            Plaintiff also asserts that CII’s sixth affirmative defense, entitled “Failure to Plan in Manner Most Compatible with Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury,” is meritless as a matter of law because it is devoid of any facts and discovery has not uncovered any facts to support this affirmative defense. As stated above, the Resolution provides Plaintiff with a presumption of entitlement to take the subject property by eminent domain entitled. (Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency v. Izant (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 141, 149.) Moreover, CII has failed to submit any evidence to show that there is a triable issue of material fact that the Resolution was adopted without substantial evidence to support its findings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of the sixth affirmative defense is granted.  In the interest of judicial economy, the Court declines to address Plaintiff’s alternative argument for summary adjudication of this affirmative defense.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.