Court Opinion

ID: 9943835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 14:52:17.812717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:58.981950
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons hereafter set forth.
Initially, I agree with the majority that the facts recited are not in dispute. However, I take issue with the majority as to the legal effect of the undisputed facts.
I note that Cordova submitted no evidence showing a prima facie claim of equitable estoppel against 21st Century. I therefore would find no reason to reach the question whether plaintiff's claim of equitable estoppel would otherwise be barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9. Similarly, I find no merit to Cordova's contention 21st Century or the trial court misled her into not presenting evidence to support her entitlement to equitable relief.
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) states: "[A] 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."
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2) states in relevant part: "A defendant . . . has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown . . . there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that . . . defense. . . ."
21st Century's motion for summary judgment established a prima facie defense to this action by showing through undisputed admissible evidence the statutory period for bringing this action expired no later than January 2, 2002, and plaintiff did not file this action until September 26, 2002. This showing shifted to Cordova the burden to show by admissible evidence a triable issue of fact existed as to the statute of limitations defense. Cordovaargued 21st Century was barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from raising a statute of limitations defense. She failed, however, to submit any admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact with respect to her claim of equitable estoppel. Without such evidence, a decision on the question of whether Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9 precludes equitable claims would be merely an advisory opinion. California courts have no power to render advisory *Page 112 
opinions. (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970)1 Cal.3d 910, 912 [83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126].) Therefore, Cordova's failure to rebut 21st Century's affirmative defense entitled defendant to a judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) I note that the majority inventively turns 21st Century's motion for summary judgment into a "nonstatutory common law motion for judgment on the pleadings." By analogy, the majority has returned Cinderella to a condition of servitude well before the stroke of midnight was imminent. The motion before the trial court was clearly one for summary adjudication in the garden variety sense.
Cordova contends for the first time on appeal she was misled into not presenting evidence to support her claim of equitable estoppel because 21st Century did not raise the lack of such evidence as a ground for summary judgment. She also argues the trial court denied her due process by basing its decision to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised by the moving party. Neither argument has merit.
To succeed on its motion for summary judgment 21st Century only had to produce evidence of an affirmative defense; it did not have to show Cordova could not produce evidence to counter or avoid that defense. As Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2) clearly states, once the defendant meets its burden of producing evidence of an affirmative defense "the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that . . . defense[.]"
Furthermore, 21st Century's summary judgment motion reasonably could not have misled Cordova into believing she did not have to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2) by showing triable issues of fact existed with respect to the statute of limitations defense. Admittedly the parties and the trial court were interested above all in the legal issue of whether Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9 blocked equitable remedies but this was not the only issue raised by 21st Century. In its notice of motion and in its points and authorities 21st Century maintained Cordova's complaint was barred by the limitations provisions of section 340.9 and therefore judgment should be entered in favor of 21st Century. This was Cordova's cue to come forward with evidence showing why the statute of limitations did not bar her action (e.g. by producing evidence showing in this case the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred 21st Century from asserting a statute of limitations defense).
In addition to raising the statute of limitations in its motion, 21st Century raised the issue at oral argument telling the trial court Cordova failed to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9 because she filed her action after the one-year period in the statute expired and therefore her action should be dismissed. Again Cordova missed the signal she needed to produce evidence to counter the defendant's affirmative defense. *Page 113 
Even after the trial court rendered its decision on the alternative ground Cordova had produced no evidence to support her claim of equitable estoppel Cordova took no steps to try to remedy the defect by producing the needed evidence. She did not move for a new trial. (See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 858 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].) She did not move for relief on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (b).) She did not move for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.)
Finally, in this appeal Cordova still has failed to identify any evidence she could advance to support her claim of equitable estoppel if given the opportunity.
Cordova has had four chances to produce evidence which would support her claim of equitable estoppel. I would decline to give her a fifth. I would affirm the judgment.
Respondent's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 24, 2005. *Page 114