Summerland Sanitary District v. Maria Stawiecki, et al.

Case Number

25CV02241

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Summerland Sanitary District: Janet K. McGinnis

                                   

For Defendants Maria Stawiecki and Ryszard Stawiecki: Self-Represented

                       

RULING

For all the reasons stated herein, the hearing in this matter is continued to February 11, 2026. Counsel for Plaintiff shall transmit its separate statement in electronic format to Defendants within three days of this order. Defendants shall use the electronic version of the separate statement provided by Plaintiff’s counsel, input Defendants’ opposing responses and supporting citations to evidence as to each of the facts, file a revised separate statement and a revised declaration, all in compliance with the applicable authorities cited herein. Defendants’ revised opposition papers shall be filed on or before January 22, 2026. Plaintiff may file a supplemental reply on or before February 2, 2026.

The MSC date of 3/20/26 and the trial date of 4/15/26 are again confirmed.

Background

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff Summerland Sanitary District filed this complaint against Defendants Maria Stawiecki and Ryszard Stawiecki alleging causes of action for (1) public nuisance, (2) recovery of abatement costs, and (3) declaratory relief. The dispute concerns a failing sewer lateral at 121 Hollister Street, Summerland, California, a residential property apparently owned by Defendants. There appear to be disputes over the particulars of an easement over the adjacent property, whether the proposed repairs are feasible, whether Defendants have acted reasonably, the impact to the community, the appropriate approach to repairs, and other issues.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment and, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to each cause of action and asserted defenses. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

Analysis

“The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the Court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)

“(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)(1), (2) & (3).)

The opposing separate statement must follow the format of this model exemplar set forth in the California Rules of Court:

Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Alleged Supporting Evidence	Opposing Party’s Response and Evidence
1. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written contract for the sale of widgets. Jackson declaration, 2:17-21; contract, Ex. A to Jackson declaration.	Undisputed.
2. No widgets were ever received. Jackson declaration, 3:7-21.	Disputed. The widgets were received in New Zealand on August 31, 2001. Baygi declaration, 7:2-5.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(h), quotations omitted.)

“The Defendant … shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).)

Here, the separate statement submitted by Plaintiff included 98 material facts. The opposing statement by Defendants included only 10 responses. The numbering of Defendants’ opposing separate statement does not match the numbering used by Plaintiff in its moving separate statement. The Court is unable to discern what evidence submitted by Defendants relates to which facts in Plaintiff’s separate statement.

None of the opposing separate statement responses by Defendants identified the facts or evidence to which it was responding. The opposing statement by Defendants did not include citations to any evidence.

Defendants’ opposing separate statement was signed under penalty of perjury, but the separate statement itself is not evidence. The exhibits submitted by Defendants attached to the motion are not admissible evidence unless a proper foundation and personal knowledge have been established in the declaration, and the documents are otherwise admissible under the Evidence Code.

When an opposing party fails to properly file a separate statement, the Court may move forward with the motion “or it can continue the motion or otherwise permit the filing of a proper separate statement. [Citation.] Whichever choice the Court makes must be based on the circumstances before the Court…. [and] ‘based on a reasoned judgment and … legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue.’ ” (Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 89, 94.)

“But the proper response in most instances, if the trial Court is not prepared to address the merits of the motion in light of the deficient separate statement, is to give the opposing party an opportunity to file a proper separate statement rather than entering judgment against that party based on its procedural error.” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1211.)

It appears Defendants have attempted to submit evidence in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment but have fallen short on several procedural, structural, and formatting requirements. The Court notes that Defendants are representing themselves in this matter and have requested a Polish interpreter for Court proceedings. The summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiff is relatively complex and raises numerous issues. The potential result of this motion could substantially impact the parties’ legal rights.

After considering the circumstances and legal principles, the Court will continue the hearing on this matter to February 11, 2026, so that a proper opposing separate statement and declaration can be filed by Defendants.