PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Burdens of Production
.........D as Moving Party
............Show P’s C/A Without Merit
33 Cards On This Topic:

Cause of action has no merit if one or more elements can’t be separately established or D establishes affirmative defense to it.

Alzheimer’s patients, under primary assumption of risk doctrine, are not liable for injuries to in-home caregivers employed to assist them; SJ for Ds affirmed.

SJ for Regents proper where record did not support W's claims that H's body was mishandled by UC Irvine's Willed Body Program.

In Ellis Act/unlawful detainer case, trial court must analyze lessor's summary adjudication motion as to statutory defense of retaliatory eviction under proper standard.

Employer's summary judgment motion on age discrimination and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing properly granted.

SA for production co. on negligent hiring C/A was proper as it was not foreseeable from co.'s directions to keep Michael Jackson healthy and able to attend rehearsals that doctor would prescribe dangerous medication jeopardizing Michael's health.

Company not liable to Ps on respondeat superior theory where employee/driver was departing substantially from his commute and his job duties at the time of the accident, and no nexus between his activities then and D's business enterprise.

No error in sustaining City's demurrer where alleged violations of charter city's ••municipal•• law not deemed violations of ••state•• law under whistleblower statute; SA proper where P unable to establish all elements of retaliation claim.

Claim of corp.'s bankr. t/ee against former executives time-barred for non-compliance with one-year SOL in employment agreements; contracting parties may modify otherwise applicable SOL if delayed discovery rule included.

Error to grant SA to Ds where triable issues of fact exist re P's claims of workplace harassment based on his Pakistani national origin and Muslim religion.

SJ for insurance co. proper where police department's acts of seizing marijuana, marijuana plants and rolling paper per search warrant and later destroying them did not trigger the theft provision in homeowner's policy.

Pest inspection co. did not owe duty to guest of current property owner—statutory duties owed only to homeowner with whom co. in privity of K and intended beneficiaries.

Psychiatrist whose patient shot Ps' family members was entitled to SJ as he did not owe 3d-party Ps a duty of care and they could not establish threshold element of medical negligence claim.

SJ for school dist. affirmed where 9-yr. old anchored bike against chain link fence on school property to climb up and pick oranges from a tree on other side and was injured.

Although foreclosure sale notice served slightly prematurely, such minor procedural irregularity not prejudicial to Borrowers, who received more than adequate notice of sale, and SJ for Lender, Trustee Buyer proper.

Trial court correctly found as matter of law that private landowner owed no duty to pedestrians to warn them of trivial defect in his walkway or to repair it.

Welding inadequate pile caps onto driven piles was not damage to "tangible property" under insurance policy where only damages alleged were costs of modifying pile caps and lost bonus for early completion.

Wal-Mart failed to establish, ••on basis of undisputed evidence••, that protesters' arrests were made for lawful purpose of enforcing Penal Code, not to suppress protected speech.

SJ properly entered for D ins. co. where P violated policy requirement to submit to exam under oath.

Trial court erred in denying D's summary adjudication motion where P did not file action before Labor comm. within one year of alleged violation of Talent Agencies Act; filing in super. ct. did not toll SOL.

Malicious prosecution SJ proper where Ps could not meet burden of showing D's underlying complaint so totally without merit that no reasonable attorney would find it tenable.

SJ properly granted on ground that Ds' conduct in filing complaints against Ps was absolutely privileged under Civ. Code §47.

SJ appropriate where P's C/A for discrimination based on disability failed as matter of law; her colitis, as described by P, could not be qualifying disability under ADA or FEHA.

As sons visiting F in Mex. not "residents" of F's household at time one son drowned, resident relative exclusion in homeowner's policy did not bar coverage for W2 when sued by W1.

Moving party Ds established that cause of action was without merit, thus shifting burden of proof to Ps.

D met burden in wrongful discharge by proving Ps’ misrepresentations re prior felony on resumes and job apps, barred claims as matter of law under after-acquired evidence doctrine.

In ruling on SJ motion, ct. must consider both the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.

D seeking SJ bears initial burden of showing cause of action without merit, and P need not respond unless and until that burden is borne.

SJ reversed due to factual issues re Ds’ awareness of P’s injury, and causation.

Moving party D must demonstrate absence of essential element of P’s case in order to merit SJ.

Landlord moving for SJ, through factually vague depo responses, showed absence of evidence to support P’s negligence claim. P failed to carry shifted burden to show triable issue of material fact.

Summary Judgment proper where attorney's prelitigation demand letter to OPC absolutely privileged under Civ. Code §47 (b).

Moving party D granted SJ where ct. determined D’s conduct was outside boundaries of tort liability because of insufficient proximate cause.