Rather, the evidence was submitted in connection with separate motions filed by other defendants, motions in which the Partnership Defendants did not join. Accordingly, the court will not consider the above evidence in connection with the Partnership Defendants’ motion. See Ca CD L.R. 56-3 ("In determining any motion for summary judgment, the Court will assume that the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in the 'Statement of Genuine Issues' and (b) controverted by declaration or other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion”). Cf. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the only evidence that directly
holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding that on a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried holding that the court must consider evidence submitted in support of a crossmotion for summary judgment to determine whether it raises triable issues of fact defeating the opponents motion holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract