Source: https://nathanmubasher.wordpress.com/page/13/
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 19:57:17
Document Index: 727291745

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 2020', '§ 2025', '§ 2025']

nathanmubasher – Page 13 – Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher blog
A motion for summary judgment in California is the topic of this blog post.
The statutory authorization for a motion for summary judgment in California is found in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a)(1) which states in pertinent part that, “Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.”
A party can also file a motion for summary adjudication along with a motion for summary judgment or in a separate motion. Summary adjudication is appropriate when the moving party can clearly show
There is no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defendant did or did not owe a duty to the other party, and
There is no merit to a claim for punitive damages as no reasonable jury would find clear and convincing evidence of malice, fraud, oppression, or approval by any principal against whom punitive damages are being sought.
Code of Procedure section 473(c) (f)(1) limits summary adjudication motions to four specific types of issues:
“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”
ADVANTAGES OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CALIFORNIA
The advantage of filing a motion for summary judgment in California is that if the moving party can provide enough specific facts and evidence to convince the Court that there are no triable issues of material fact they can win their motion for summary judgment and avoid the delay and expense of having to proceed to trial.
California law states that if there are no triable issues of material facts the Court must grant the motion as Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c) states in pertinent part that, “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CALIFORNIA
California law does impose several strict requirements that must be met in filing a motion for summary judgment.
The party moving for summary judgment must wait until at least 60 days have passed since the general appearance of the party or parties against whom the motion is directed unless the Court orders otherwise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section § 437c(a)(1).
The party filing a motion for summary judgment must give a minimum of 75 calendar day’s notice of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. California law does not specify any statutory procedure for shortening the notice period for a motion for summary judgment.
A motion for summary judgment in California must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of the trial unless the court orders otherwise.
Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(2) states that, “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.”
Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(3) states that, “The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.”
Another important requirement on a motion for summary judgment in California is that the moving party must include what is known as a separate statement of undisputed material facts which lists all material facts that they contend are undisputed. The separate statement must also include a reference to the supporting evidence for each individual material fact.
A motion for summary judgment can be supported by affidavits or declarations, admissions, responses to interrogatories and deposition transcripts.
Code of Civil Procedure § 437c (b)(1) states that,
“The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.”
BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PARTY FILING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A plaintiff filing a motion for summary judgment must meet their burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action and that they moving party has proved each element required for that cause of action which would entitle them to judgment.
Once the plaintiff has met their burden the defendant must then show that a triable issue of material fact or facts exists as to that cause of action or their defense to that cause of action. The defendant cannot just rely on any allegations in their answer but must detail the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or their defense to that cause of action. Thus a plaintiff in a case where all of the facts and evidence obtained during discovery clearly shows that a defendant has no defense to their complaint has a very good chance of winning a motion for summary judgment.
A defendant filing a motion for summary judgment must meet their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of a cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant has met their burden the plaintiff must then show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense to that cause of action.
The plaintiff cannot just rely on any allegations in complaint but must detail the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or their defense to that cause of action.
This means that a defendant in a case where all of the facts and evidence obtained during discovery clearly shows that the plaintiff has no case against them has a very good chance of winning a motion for summary judgment.
Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(1) and (2) state that for purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication,
“(1) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant may not rely upon the mere 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto.”
(2) A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant may not rely upon the mere 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto.”
An experienced litigation attorney can analyze all of the unique facts and circumstances of any particular case in order to determine if filing a motion for summary judgment is a good strategy.
Author nathanmubasherPosted on February 18, 2017 February 17, 2017 Categories California law, civil litigation, law, legal, summary judgmentTags attorney, California law, law, legal, litigation, motion for summary judgmentLeave a comment on Motion for summary judgment in California
Author nathanmubasherPosted on February 17, 2017 February 17, 2017 Categories California law, civil litigation, law, legal, UncategorizedTags attorney, California law, law, lawyer, legalLeave a comment on How to vacate a judgment in California
Depositions in California are the topic of this blog post.
Depositions in California are authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.010 which states in pertinent part that, “Any party may obtain discovery … by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.”
A party involved in litigation in California can take the deposition of any other party including adverse parties or co-parties. Parties can even take their own depositions so that they can have a record of their testimony in the event they are unavailable to testify at trial.
Depositions can also be taken of current officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section § 2025.280: “The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify…”
Depositions in California have some very unique advantages compared to other forms of discovery as well as some disadvantages which will both be discussed in this article.
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.220 states that a party that wants to take the oral deposition of another party must give notice in writing and the notice must contain certain required information.
A plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. On motion with or without notice, the court, for good cause shown, may grant to a plaintiff leave to serve a deposition notice on an earlier date. See Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.210.
A defendant may serve a deposition notice without leave of court at any time after that defendant has been served, or has appeared in the action, whichever occurs first.
Special notice requirements apply to the taking of a deposition of a corporation or other fictitious entity which is known as a deposition of person most knowledgeable or PMK deposition.
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.230 states that, “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”
A recent California Court of Appeal case stated that “[t]he purpose of this provision is to eliminate the problem of trying to find out who in the corporate hierarchy has the information the examiner is seeking. E.g., in a product liability suit, who in the engineering department designed the defective part?” See Maldonado v. Sup.Ct. (ICG Telecom Group, Inc.) (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1395.
And a deposition notice is sufficient to compel a party or “party-affiliated” witnesses to produce books, records or other materials—including electronically-stored information—in their possession at the time of deposition … as long as the notice of deposition specifies with reasonable particularity the materials or category of materials (including any electronically-stored information) they are to produce. See Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.220(a)(4).
ADVANTAGES OF DEPOSITIONS:
Obtaining evidence from individuals or entities that are not parties to the action. A deposition is the only discovery method authorized by California law that permits you to obtain testimony, documents, electronically stored information, and other evidence from an individual or entity that is not a party to the action. See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2020.010 through 2020.510.
Locks in testimony of opposing parties and possible unfriendly witnesses. Depositions are usually the best way to lock in the testimony of unfriendly witnesses and opposing parties.
Allows for personal observations of the witness. The attorney has an opportunity to personally observe the deponent in an examination setting and assess his or her potential effect on the trier of fact if the case goes to trial. And if the deposition is videotaped there is an additional advantage in that the trier of fact may also observe the demeanor of the witness during their deposition.
Obtain spontaneous responses. Your attorney can elicit more spontaneous and complete answers to his questions than with interrogatories because the witness’ responses are less likely to have been rehearsed with opposing counsel; and if the witness tries to evade a question or not answer it completely your attorney can immediately follow it with narrower, more precise questions until you are satisfied with the response.
No numerical limit to questions. Unlike the numerical limits imposed by California law on interrogatories and requests for admission, there are no limits on the number of questions that can be asked of a witness during a deposition although there is a general 7 hour time limit on the length of depositions for most individuals imposed by Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.290.
Defendants may obtain early discovery. If you are the defendant, you can notice a deposition as soon as you have been served with the complaint or appear in the action, whichever occurs first. Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.210(a).
Promoting settlement. If you want to settle the case and your attorney is deposing someone with settlement authority, carefully worded questions supported by documents demonstrating the strength of your case may affect the other party’s confidence in its claims or defenses and help lessen a party’s resolve to bring the matter to trial.
DISADVANTAGES OF DEPOSITIONS
Cost. Preparing for and taking depositions may be more expensive than other forms of discovery, in that there are court reporter fees and videographer fees. There are also additional costs for attorney fees for time spent reviewing the file, preparing exhibits, researching legal issues, reviewing prior transcripts, preparing questions, and traveling to and taking the deposition.
Inefficient in some cases. Depositions can be inefficient unless sufficient time has been spent preparing for the deposition. Otherwise valuable time may be wasted sorting through facts and documents for the first time during the deposition. A skilled attorney will demand documents and review interrogatory responses to detailed factual questions before taking the deposition.
Reveals information to your opponent. You lose the advantage of surprising the opposing party and opposing counsel at trial by revealing the most probable areas of examination at trial and interrogation methods of your attorney, and it can also stimulate opposing counsel to prepare for trial more carefully, in that the questions asked by your attorney may reveal previously unknown facts and issues to opposing counsel.
Educates witnesses. There is a risk that witnesses who make poor showings at a deposition will learn by their mistakes and be coached to become stronger witnesses at trial. There is also the risk that the witness will disclose grounds for impeachment or weakness in testimony that the opposing party can use at trial.
An experienced attorney that has extensive experience in depositions can analyze your unique situation and determine if the advantages of taking depositions outweigh the disadvantages in your case.
Author nathanmubasherPosted on February 17, 2017 February 17, 2017 Categories California law, civil litigation, discovery, law, legalTags attorney, California law, depositions, discovery law, law, legalLeave a comment on Depositions in California
Motion to strike a complaint in California
Notice to appear at a trial or hearing and produce documents in California