PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Burdens of Production
.........D as Moving Party
............Show Complete Defense
65 Cards On This Topic:

Although school search of 13-yr.-old's underwear unreasonable and violated 4th Amendment, school officials protected from liability through qualified immunity and granted SJ; remand re district liability.

SJ for franchisor upheld as franchisor did not have required employment or agency relationship with the franchisee to hold it vicariously liable for a supervisor's alleged harassment of a subordinate.

SJ for employer reversed as federal immigration law does not preempt immigrant employee's claims under FEHA; after-acquired evidence and unclean hands are not complete defenses to worker’s claims under FEHA.

SJ for manufacturer proper where manufacturer cannot be liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk, if a sophisticated user should reasonably know of that risk; defense applies in CA.

CA law banning import of products made from kangaroo is valid and not preempted by Endangered Species Act; SJ for Adidas reversed.

Ds should have been granted SA on cause of action for Song Beverly violation where Ps purchased motor home in Idaho and Song Beverly does not apply unless vehicle purchased in California.

In case of direct conflict, Prop 65 requirement to place health warnings on nicotine replacement products is preempted by federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Under Ann M., daycare center not liable for deranged 3d party intentionally driving through its chainlink fence into group of children because such criminal act was unforeseeable.

Where no assaults in preceding 10 years, violent 3d party sexual assault in commercial parking garage not sufficiently foreseeable to support requirement Ds provide security.

Trial court erred in denying County's SJ motion as undisputed material facts showed it was immune from liability under GC §831.7 for injuries P suffered while tree rope swinging in a park; exceptions inapplicable.

Based on GC §§820.2 and 815.2, County is immune from liability for its Os firing tear gas into P's home trying to arrest his son; Os have discretionary immunity to choose the means used to make an arrest.

Medical staffing agency not vicariously liable for employee's poisoning of coworker at assigned job where employee acted outside the course and scope of her employment.

In breach of implied K, RPIs' C/As were time-barred under CCP 339 and they were not entitled to delayed accrual under the discovery rule where they did not plead facts showing an inability to discover their claims earlier despite reasonable diligence.

SWs are not judicial officers entitled to judicial immunity, but are entitled to SJ as a matter of law based on the immunity that shields discretionary decisions by public employees under GC §820.2.

Under federal law, attorney cannot transfer a copyright without owner’s signature “or some express authorization” from the owner—SJ for Ds affirmed.

Ps injured in Harley-Davidson's group motorcycle toy ride on L.A. freeway were barred from recovery where primary assumption of risk applied to the activity—no expert testimony required where risk obvious and SJ for Harley proper.

SJ for Ds proper where P's state product liability and PI claims were preempted by 21 USC 360k of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976.

SJ for Ds in DUI wrongful death case affirmed where duty owed by rental car companies to determine validity of customers' licenses does not include electronic driver's license checks; SJ rather than SA to one D harmless error.

Burning Man Festival promoter owed no duty of care under primary assumption of risk to P, who tripped and fell into burning remnants of the effigy during ritual.

Where dominant purpose of P's membership agrt with D was provision of fitness services, D not strictly liable to P under product liability theory for her injuries on stair step machine and SJ for D proper.

SJ properly granted to finance lessor which provided financing for used glue spreader which caused P injury; finance lessor was outside direct chain of distribution and strict liability as lessor inapplicable.

SJ for ins. co. proper where pollution exclusion clause clearly and conspicuously excluded coverage for insured's dispersal of environmental pollutant into public sewer.

Considered alone or cumulatively, features of intersection where car hit students did not create a dangerous condition so as to make city liable; USD also not responsible for students' safety outside school premises.

SJ for CPS, which sent child back to violent father who then stabbed her, affirmed—GC 820.2 immunizes govt employees from liability for discretionary acts.

SJ for college offering peace officer training class properly granted where injured P's complaint barred by primary assumption of risk.

SJ proper where sleepover host's mother did not owe duty of care to teenaged guest who left home with boys and without permission, and was raped at another location.

Colliding with plainly visible snowmaking hydrant on a ski run is an inherent risk of skiing under primary assumption of risk and SJ for Squaw Valley appropriate.

SA for Ds was proper where neither NFL nor its commissioner stood in a fiduciary relationship with Oakland Raiders and conflict was one from which courts should properly abstain.

Fertility clinic entitled to SJ in invasion of privacy action where it disclosed patient's in vitro fertilization to ex-fiancé on whose credit card it was charged [CC 56.10 (c)(2)].

SJ for State proper where it did not receive the money on which P's judgment against Cal. Egg Commission based, and P's claim against State was for money damages, not specific monetary relief, and was barred by sovereign immunity.

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Ds on Ps' cause of action for breach of lease as Ds owed contractual duty to Ps as matter of law to preserve their quiet enjoyment.

Property owners owed duty to replace missing glass pane in front door—such duty so minimally burdensome it militated in favor of imposing it on owners.

Online traffic school's damage claims against government entity barred by its failure to file GC 945.4 claim and SJ for entity properly entered.

SJ for Ds affirmed where agreement on which Ps' claim based was illegal and against public policy.

Absent concealment, prior owner of real property is not liable for injuries caused by defective condition on the premises long after ownership and control transferred.

Fee-sharing agreement between attorney and non/attorney unenforceable under illegality of contract; no exception applied as parties in pari delicto.

SJ for D affirmed where e-mails he sent about P company were not actionable as libel or trade libel—they expressed his opinions and fully disclosed provably true facts on which opinions based.

Trial court erred in finding attorney's representation of P was not continuous and did not toll malpractice statute of limitations where he continued to represent her on original subject matter.

SJ for hospital reversed where W&IC 5278 gives immunity for initiation and maintenance of a W&IC 5150 detention but not for negligent or other wrongful conduct.

SJ proper where wife's lawyer owed no duty to husband to advise him of his rights in connection with wrongful death action concerning their drowned child nor to name him as a nominal defendant.

Exclusive remedy for farm laborer's ordinary physical injury while engaged in course and scope of his employment with farm labor contractor was workers' comp.

Airline may eject passenger it reasonably believes is, or might become, inimical to safety of the aircraft or passengers, without subjecting airline to tort liability; SJ for airline affirmed.

Entities may claim CC 43.8 privilege for communications to hospital evaluating medical practitioner; privilege is qualified rather than absolute; SJ for D affirmed.

Error to grant SJ for Ds where they failed initial burden of production to make prima facie showing affirmative defense applied and burden did not therefore shift to P to raise triable issue.

SJ reversed where P’s negligence cause of action not barred by assumption of risk: D owed him duty.

Trial court correctly granted summary judgment to gun manufacturer where statute and public policy precluded proceeding on common law negligence theory.

Husband’s defamation claims against Wife’s attorney and custody evaluator, for letter sent to judge detailing H’s threats re negative evaluation, barred by litigation privilege.

Summary judgment appropriate where second 90-day notice of intent to bring medical malpractice suit did not toll 1-year limitations period.

Storeowners not liable for P’s injuries from passing shooter.

Sears could not have reasonably anticipated first recorded criminal assault in its parking lot and was under no duty to prevent it.

Trial court erred in denying SA of cause of action which sought to hold security guard company vicariously liable for employee's arson while on job.

Moving Ds failed to meet burden of introducing sufficient facts to make out assumption of risk defense where case controlled by maritime law not recognizing such defense.

D failed to show complete defense as causation element of "misuse" affirmative not even addressed.

SA for Ds appropriate where Ds established they owed no duty to P and P’s claim barred by statute of limitations.

SJ for D proper where no agreement that distribution agrmt would last for fixed term of years, Ks of indefinite duration, and terminable at will.

SJ for state appropriate on constitutionality of Talent Agencies Act because state met burden of showing legis. classification passed "rational relationship" test.

If seized bank funds shown to be in trust for subcontractors and bank knew/should have known customer/contractor was trustee, D’s lack of standing claim had no merit.

Moving party entitled to SJ because it established, as matter of law, complete defense, i.e., P’s action barred by applicable statute.

D as moving party must establish complete defense in order to establish entitlement to SA.

Rafting company’s evidence established they owed P no duty of care and primary assumption of risk barred recovery for rafting injury.

Code Civ. Proc. §437c does not limit D’s right to present affirmative defense as complete defense in SJ or SA; D may still show "no merit" by establishing complete defense to a C/A.

D entitled to SJ when he or she establishes complete defense to the P’s action.

Defense based on statute of limitations is technical defense which should be strictly construed to avoid forfeiture of P's rights.

Failure to raise affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction and release does not preclude asserting them in SJ motion.

SJ for malicious prosecution Ds inappropriate where one of their underlying claims not supported by probable cause although other claim was.