C.A. 1st;
A145758

The First Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs' repeated failure to comply with court rules in their opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment warranted the motion being decided against them.

Property owners Dennis Rush and others sued various entities for fraud, negligence, and related causes of action. Four of the defendants moved for summary judgment, on several bases, including lack of standing, lack of duty, and lack of causation. Plaintiffs filed a 155-page separate statement in response that failed to comply with the Rules of Court, improperly citing to numerous undisputed material facts for specific arguments in the opposition, which undisputed material facts were then supported by multiple paragraphs of multiple declarations, at times by every paragraph of nearly every declaration on file. After hearing, the trial court entered an order directing plaintiffs to address these issues. When plaintiffs' response was still not proper, the court issued an order entitled “order mandating compliance with California Rule of Court 3.1350.” Plaintiffs' supplemental separate statement still did not comply. Following another hearing, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs' noncompliance.