From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Springer v. Cooper

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Apr 30, 2009
No. B202819 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. GC 034166, Joseph F. DeVanon, Jr., Judge.

Phillip M. Smith, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Daley & Heft and Lee H. Roistacher for Defendant and Respondent Lincoln Avenue Baptist Church of Pasadena.

Law Offices of Leech & Associates and D. Wayne Leech for Defendants and Respondents Wayne C. Cooper, Lee Hudson, Dwaine Driver and Carol Richardson.


ROTHSCHILD, J.

Plaintiffs Larry Springer, Julius Henderson, W.T. Springer, Donzell Jordan, and Danny Johnson filed this derivative action on behalf of the Lincoln Avenue Baptist Church of Pasadena, California, against Wayne C. Cooper, Lee Hudson, Dwaine Driver, and Carol Richardson. Richardson’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and that ruling is not at issue on this appeal. The church and the remaining individual defendants moved separately for summary judgment. The evidence that plaintiffs submitted in opposition consisted of two declarations, with eleven attached exhibits. The moving defendants objected to all of plaintiffs’ evidence, subject to a few trivial and inconsequential exceptions (e.g., they did not object to the first paragraph of each of the declarations). The trial court sustained all of the objections to the two declarations, granted the motions for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of all defendants. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion is denied because it is based entirely on Corporations Code section 800, which is a provision of the General Corporation Law and hence does not apply to the church. (See Corp. Code, § 102.)

On appeal, plaintiffs do not argue that the moving defendants failed to carry their initial burden under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, of making a prima facie showing that there are no disputed issues of material fact. Nor do plaintiffs challenge any of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Plaintiffs cite no admitted evidence in support of their arguments, and we do not consider evidence “to which objections have been made and sustained.” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) We therefore must affirm the judgment, because (1) plaintiffs do not argue that defendants failed to carry their initial burden in support of the motion, and (2) plaintiffs cite no admitted evidence showing that plaintiffs carried their own burden in opposition.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs of appeal.

We concur: MALLANO, P. J., WEISBERG, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

Springer v. Cooper

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Apr 30, 2009
No. B202819 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Springer v. Cooper

Case Details

Full title:LARRY SPRINGER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WAYNE C. COOPER et…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

No. B202819 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)