What is the significance of a separate statement in a section of the California Civil Code requiring a court to grant a motion for failure to comply with the separate statement?

Our task should be to reconcile the two parts of the statute so that each may be given effect. "Significance, if possible, should be attributed to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose, as 'the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.' " (DeYoung v. City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11, 18, 194 Cal.Rptr. 722.) The majority holding violates this basic rule of statutory construction by effectively denying any significance to the portion of the statute empowering the court to grant the motion for failure to comply with the separate statement requirement.