PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Burdens of Production
.........D as Moving Party
............Disprove Element(s) of C/A
24 Cards On This Topic:

SJ for attys proper where no triable issues to show P's alleged damages caused by attys' conduct: They told her to accept partner's settlement offers as she could lose putative spouse case and take nothing.

SJ for merchant proper as consumer protection statute prohibiting merchants from obtaining personal I.D. info from credit card users does not apply to refunds for return of merchandise purchased by credit card.

SJ for lenders improper where HO showed triable issues of material fact re alleged predatory loan and Ds Ds' SJ motion did not address exceptions to tender requirement HO relied on; movant must show it deserves SJ re all of P's theories.

West Hollywood's ban on animal declawing not precluded by statute or preempted by state regulation; SJ for veterinary association reversed.

Because record showed producer did not know of P's pregnancy at time she was fired, P failed to make out prima facie case for sex discrimination and wrongful termination sufficient to withstand SJ/SA.

Summary judgment reversed where conflicting insurance policy language created ambiguity leaving unresolved questions of fact as to whether insured entitled to coverage.

Error to grant summary adjudication for nursing home where triable issues of fact existed as to the reckless neglect element of the cause of action for elder abuse.

In malicious prosecution, CCP §437c (f)(1) does not permit SA where some but not all claims in single underlying action were supported by probable cause as such determination does not completely dispose of entire cause of action.

SJ reversed where communication to therapist by patient's father of patient's threat to kill or cause grave bodily injury to V raised triable issue concerning therapist's duty to warn V.

Error to grant summary adjudication for nursing home where triable issues of fact existed as to fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action.

SJ for insurer proper where insured law firm did not "suspend operations" after flood within meaning of "business interruption" ins. policy but continued to operate at reduced capacity.

Error to grant SJ to D who presented no evidence in moving papers concerning P's disability or how it impacted her daily life re alleged disability accommodation violations.

SA reversed where D landlords failed to satisfy burden to show there was duty of care owed to tenants to avoid exposing them to unreasonable risk of injury on busy street off premises.

Grant of SJ for ski resort error where evidence overcame finding P barred by primary assumption of risk for injury caused by improperly placed, insulated and maintained sign on ski course.

School district and swim coach may be liable to novice swimmer for having her dive uninstructed into shallow racing pool; SJ for Ds reversed.

D may still shift burden of producing evidence of triable issue to P by "negating or disproving" necessary element of P’s cause of action.

D failed to make affirmative showing that P’s case could not be established sufficient to shift burden; suggesting possibility P could not prove case insufficient.

D carried initial burden in showing, through factually vague discovery responses, causation "cannot be established." P failed to meet shifted burden to prove triable issue of material fact existed re causation.

D must establish none of P’s asserted causes of action can prevail; SJ based on bar of primary assumption of risk inappropriate where secondary assumption of risk applied.

SA and SJ in favor of defendant City were appropriate as trial record adequate to resolve developer’s claims as matter of law.

Though D did not meet burden of showing P’s causes of action lacked merit, P’s own evidence from D’s depo proved P could not prove cause of action and provided basis for granting SJ to D.

D moving for SJ has must establish complete defense or negate each of P’s theories and establish action has no merit.

Moving party D not entitled to summary judgment where D’s liability did not require actual knowledge and P’s evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding D’s duty.

If summary judgment motion prima facie justifies judgment in movant’s favor, opposing party’s counteraffidavits and decls must disclose triable issue.