Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Central Minute Order
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Central Minute Order
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Central Minute Order
TIME: 11:29:00 AM
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Ronald S. Prager
CLERK: Terry Ray
REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: L. Wilks
DEPT: C-71
APPEARANCES
There are no appearances by any party.
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 01/23/15 and having fully
considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now
rules as follows:
RULINGS AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT: The Court rules on defendant/respondent City of San Diego's
(City) motion for summary judgment as follows:
After taking the matter under submission, the Court confirms its tentative ruling.
City's Request for Judicial Notice. The request for judicial notice is granted.
Standard for Summary Judgment
A motion for summary judgment asks the court to determine that the entire action has no merit or that
there is no defense (Code Civ. Proc. 437c(a).) The moving party's evidence is strictly construed while
the opposing party's evidence is liberally construed. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 832, 838 (hereafter Binder).) The Court's sole function is issue finding, not issue
determination. (Id. at p. 839.) A Court may not weigh the evidence or conflicting inferences. (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 856 (hereafter Aguilar).) A Court may decide the issues as
a matter of law only when the inferences are indisputable. (Binder, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 839.)
Factual issues must be resolved by trial if the evidence is in conflict. (Ibid.)
Burden of Proof. Where the plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of the evidence,
defendant "must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact not to find the underlying
DATE: 01/27/2015
DEPT: C-71
MINUTE ORDER
Page 1
Calendar No.
DATE: 01/27/2015
DEPT: C-71
MINUTE ORDER
Page 2
Calendar No.
on the necessity of bringing a timely suit." Here, none of the representations cited to by Petitioner in
support of its argument bears on the issue of its right to file suit. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to meet
the required elements to assert estoppel. (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 655.) For
example, there is no evidence that Petitioner advised the City that it was holding off on litigation based
on the City's representations or that the City expected Petitioner to refrain from filing litigation based on
its representations.
Finally, as to Petitioner's contention that section 65009 subd. (c)(1)(E) does not apply to this action, the
City correctly pointed out that section 65009 subd. (f) specifically states that it applies to charter cities.
Regardless, Petitioner did not contest the applicability of section 121.0102.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court rules on real parties in interest Jack in the Box Inc. (JIB) and John 0. Thomas' (Thomas)
(sometimes collectively RPIs) motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication
as follows:
After taking the matter under submission, the Court confirms its tentative ruling.
Requests for Judicial Notice. The parties' requests for judicial notice are granted.
Petitioner North Park Preservation Coalition's (Petitioner) Evidentiary Objections.The Court rules as
follows:
Gladden Declaration. Objection No.1 is overruled. Objection No. 2 is sustained on the grounds of
hearsay and lack of authentication.
Standard for Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication
A motion for summary judgment asks the court to determine that the entire action has no merit or that
there is no defense (Code Civ. Proc., 437c(a)) while a motion for summary adjudication asks the court
to determine that one or more causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of
duty has no merit (Id., at subd. (f)(1)). The moving party's evidence is strictly construed while the
opposing party's evidence is liberally construed. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th
832, 838 (hereafter Binder).) The Court's sole function is issue finding, not issue determination. (N. at
DATE: 01/27/2015
DEPT: C-71
MINUTE ORDER
Page 3
Calendar No.
invit4ti
ei-4e/t-
DATE: 01/27/2015
DEPT: C-71
MINUTE ORDER
Page 4
Calendar No.