854.)Īs explained by the court in Brantley v. In first reviewing the summary judgment motion, consider two things.Īs discussed in Aguilar, a party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden to demonstrate either that: (1) The non-moving party does not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence supporting their claim, or (2) Submit sufficient affirmative evidence to establish that there is no triable issue of material fact as to an element of the non-moving party’s claim. I’m not suggesting that you give the MPA short shrift by any means, but the other issues are even more important. Although I personally think that the MPA is critical, even a cursory review of appellate decisions on summary judgment motion grants will find virtually all of them talking about the separate statement rather than the MPA.
![bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony](https://attorneydocs.com/wp-content/uploadspreviews/ec36bdd5889732f51290dec9ee61f5ed-791x1024.jpeg)
You would think that the Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MPA”) would be on that list but, again, you would be wrong. There are three critical aspects of your opposition to a summary judgment you should pay particular attention to in order to ensure that you have the best chance of getting the motion denied: (1) Your separate statement (2) your evidence and (3) objecting to the defense’s evidence. Half-hearted or off-the-cuff oppositions will result in judgments against you thoroughly researched oppositions with detailed and admissible evidence will save you from a judgment. Thus, it is critical that in opposing summary judgment, you take it seriously and do it right. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 254.) You would think that, with such stringent standards for granting summary judgment, they would rarely be granted and such grants would be even more rarely affirmed. One other important standard applicable to summary judgments is the oft-overlooked rule that the opposing party’s evidence must be accepted as true. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 187-188, superseded by statute on another point as recognized in Rice v. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, emphasis added.) In other words, summary judgment is not to be granted simply because a case is “weak” or because a “weak” showing was made in opposition. Mac Dougal (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 396, 399-400.)Īnd a “defendant moving for summary judgment must show the plaintiff’s causes of action have no merit.” ( Aguilar v.
![bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony](https://www.pdffiller.com/preview/100/280/100280020/large.png)
![bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony](https://pendergastkc.org/sites/default/files/collections/5NARARound1/NARA-12028-0004-001.jpg)
Over and over again it has been said that the procedure is drastic and should be used with caution (citation) that the moving party’s affidavits are to be strictly construed, those of his opponent liberally construed and that ‘doubt’ is to be resolved against the moving party.” ( Harding v. This is surprising since the “purpose of the summary judgment is to weed out nonlitigable cases, not to pretry and dispose of doubtfully successful ones. It might just be me, but my sense is that more summary judgments get filed every year, and that a larger percentage of them get granted every year.
![bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony bill of particulars conflicting with deposition testimony](https://d20ohkaloyme4g.cloudfront.net/img/document_thumbnails/c26e253228ae01ebae9ebcd4b689ab2d/thumb_1200_1835.png)
So I’ve worked with a broad range of plaintiff law firms, in a variety of practice areas – but always on the plaintiffs’ side. During most of those years, I did that work as an employee of a firm for the last 11 years I’ve been retained by a variety of firms, both large and small, to do that work. I have been doing law and motion and appeals for plaintiff firms for many, many years (please don’t ask how many!).