Michael M Stewart Trust vs Ian Alban Stewart, Sr et al

Case Number

22CV04219

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/29/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Conference

Tentative Ruling

The Michael M. Stewart Trust etc. v. Ian Alban Stewart Sr., et al. 

Case No. 22CV04219

           

Hearing Date: September 29, 2025                                                   

HEARING:              Motion of Plaintiff for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Norman Colavincenzo, Trustee of the Michael M. Stewart Trust: Matthew Clarke, Kelley Clarke, PC

                                    For Defendant Ian A. Stewart Sr.: Self-represented

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ian A. Stewart Sr. shall file and serve a separate document as his Opposition Separate Statement complying with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f), on or before October 13, 2025. Plaintiff may file an amended reply on or before October 20, 2025. Hearing on this matter is continued to October 27, 2025.

Plaintiff Norman Colavincenzo, as trustee of the Michael M. Stewart Trust, brings this motion for summary judgment or for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and third cause of action for breach of contract against defendant Ian Stewart, Sr., only.

In opposition to the motion, defendant Stewart, Sr., self-represented, filed a “Response” which includes, at pages 9 through 16, what appears to be intended as the response separate statement. The response separate statement does not comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court.

First, the separate statement must be a separate document. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e)(2).)

Second, the contents of the opposition separate statement must follow the applicable rules exactly:

“Content of separate statement in opposition to motion

“The Separate Statement in Opposition to Motion must be in the two-column format specified in (h).

“(1)      Each material fact claimed by the moving party to be undisputed must be set out verbatim on the left side of the page, below which must be set out the evidence said by the moving party to establish that fact, complete with the moving party's references to exhibits.

“(2)      On the right side of the page, directly opposite the recitation of the moving party’s statement of material facts and supporting evidence, the response must unequivocally state whether that fact is ‘disputed’ or ‘undisputed.’ An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted. Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

“(3)      If the opposing party contends that additional material facts are pertinent to the disposition of the motion, those facts must be set forth in the separate statement. The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion. Each fact must be followed by the evidence that establishes the fact. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f).)

As noted in the reply separate statement, the separate statement facts included in the opposition separate statement do not exactly follow the facts as stated in the moving separate statement. For example, moving separate statement fact 4 is: “The Seacliff property was the remaining trust asset, real property located on Bramar Terrace in Santa Barbara.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 2.) The only opposition separate statement fact with the number “4” is identified as “A-4” but is: “Stewart Sr. agreed to remediate contaminated soil and partition the property.” (Opposition, at p. 9.)

(The court also notes that since January 1, 2025, reply separate statements are expressly improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4).))

Insofar as one purpose of the opposition separate statement is to allow the court to quickly and easily determine whether there are triable issues of fact (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1248), it is necessary that the opposing separate statement facts align numerically and verbatim with the moving separate statement facts, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f)(1).

The court will exercise its discretion to require defendant Stewart Sr. to file a separate statement that complies with rule 3.1350(f). (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 263.)

The court will continue the hearing on the motion to permit the filing of a compliant separate statement and a response thereto.