Opinion ID: 2599136
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court sufficiently advised Kaiser of the necessity of obtaining an expert affidavit in order to avoid summary judgment.

Text: In Breck v. Ulmer , where a pro se litigant had lost on summary judgment, this court held that she should have been advised of the necessity of submitting affidavits to preclude summary judgment. [10] In this case, the trial court advised Kaiser quite clearly that if he did not submit an expert affidavit to challenge the affidavit submitted by defendants, Kaiser would lose on summary judgment. The trial judge warned Kaiser that the defendants were going to move for summary judgment. Once the defendants made this motion, the trial judge explained, your opposition is going to be ... due pretty soon.... You're now getting notice, today on April 20th, that it's coming, and so I want you to go out and start making that effort so you do have that expert lined up by the time [the defendants make] that motion.... If you're unable to locate an expert who's going to back up your theory of liability, then [the defendants] are entitled to a summary judgment. Judge Sanders further reiterated, what you need ... is ... countervailing expert testimony, and you're going to need to have an expert that's going to [support your position]. The trial court's warning to Kaiser regarding the need for an expert affidavit could not have been clearer. To the extent that Kaiser now challenges the adequacy of the trial court's guidance on this issue, his challenge fails.