North View Estates v. Yreka Holdings, et al, No. 2:2008cv02230 - Document 100 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING dfts 50 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/13/2010. (Suttles, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 15 16 17 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 2:08-cv-02230-JAM-GGH NORTH VIEW ESTATES, GP, a General Partnership, v. YREKA HOLDINGS, II, a Oregon Limited Partnership; CHRIS A. GALPIN, an individual; GREGG ADAMS, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. ______________________________/ 20 21 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Yreka 22 23 Holdings, II, Cris Galpin, and Gregg Adam’s (collectively 24 “Defendants”) motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to 25 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 Plaintiff North View Estates, GP (“Plaintiff”) opposes the (Doc. # 50.) 27 motion. (Doc. # 71.) For the reasons set forth below, 28 Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 1 1 I. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Court views the facts and draws inferences in the 3 manner most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. 4 5 This case concerns the sale and financing of 142 acres of real 6 property, known as the North View Estates property, located in 7 the City of Yreka. 8 Plaintiff North View Estates was the original owner of the entire North View Estates Property. 9 Plaintiff argues that by way of a Purchase Agreement and 10 11 Addendum to the Purchase Agreement it sold to the Defendants the 12 entire North View Estates property. 13 Purchase Agreement and Addendum violate the Subdivision Map Act 14 and therefore are void. Defendants assert the In the instant motion, Defendants move 15 for partial summary judgment, alleging that the Court should 16 17 enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in 18 both the First Amended Supplemental Counterclaim (hereinafter 19 “Counterclaim”)(Doc. # 28) and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. # 20 32). 21 On January 12, 2010, the Court held a hearing on this 22 matter and on Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on 23 24 the first and second causes of action in the Counterclaim. (Doc. 25 # 82.) 26 judgment for all the reasons set forth at the January 12, 2010 The Court granted Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary 27 hearing and for the reasons detailed in Plaintiff’s briefs 28 describing why the statute of limitations precludes Defendants 2 1 2 from going forward on these twp affirmative causes of action. As such, the only issues presently before the Court are 3 Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Defendants’ 4 5 third cause of action in the Counterclaim and Defendants’ motion 6 for partial summary judgment on all eight causes of action in 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint. 8 II. OPINION 9 A. Legal Standard 10 11 A motion for partial summary judgment is resolved under the 12 same standard as a motion for summary judgment. See California 13 v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 1998). Summary 14 judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 15 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with 16 17 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of 18 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment 19 as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 20 summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually The purpose of 21 unsupported claims and defenses.” Cleotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 22 317, 323-324 (1986). 23 24 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating 25 the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 26 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 447 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). 27 If the moving party meets its burden, the burden of production 28 then shifts so that “the non-moving party must set forth, by 3 1 2 affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” T.W. Elec. 3 Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 4 5 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and citing 6 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). 7 draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the non-moving 8 The Court must view the facts and United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 party. 9 (1962). 10 The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of 11 12 the non-moving party’s position is insufficient: “There must be 13 evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [the non- 14 moving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. This Court thus 15 applies to either a defendant’s or plaintiff’s motion for 16 17 summary judgment the same standard as for a motion for directed 18 verdict, which is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient 19 disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so 20 one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. 21 B. Third Cause of Action in Defendants’ Counterclaim 22 Defendants’ third cause of action in the Counterclaim seeks 23 24 a declaration that the sales of units 4, 5, 7, 10A and 10B are 25 void. 26 partial reconveyances void and granted Plaintiff’s motion to set At the August 26, 2009 hearing, the Court declared such 27 aside the recordation of partial reconveyances. See Doc. # 48. 28 As such, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their third 4 1 2 cause of action is moot. As to any other relief Defendants are entitled to under this claim, Defendants failed to present 3 sufficient evidence or argument on this issue in their summary 4 5 judgment papers or at the hearing on their motion. Accordingly, 6 the issue of what additional remedy, if any, Defendants are 7 entitled to under their third cause of action is reserved for 8 trial and Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the 9 third cause of action in the Counterclaim is DENIED. 10 11 12 13 14 C. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint Defendants seek summary judgment on all eight causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendants have not presented 15 enough evidence to sustain their motion for summary judgment. 16 17 Plaintiff also demonstrated in its Opposition brief (Doc. # 71) 18 and at the January 12, 2010 hearing that there are genuine 19 issues of material fact for trial. 20 need to be tried is left for the parties to set forth in their The matter of what issues 21 joint pre-trial statement due January 20, 2010, and will be 22 further discussed at the pretrial conference scheduled for 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 2 January 27, 2010. As such, Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint is DENIED. 3 III. ORDER 4 5 6 7 8 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2010 ____________________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
