Inevitably, however, cases arise that involve a culpable co-defendant and a client wants to preserve its ability to attribute fault to the co-defendant at trial. This issue becomes complex and the specific language of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(l) comes into play when the co-defendant seeks no-fault summary judgment.Section 437c(l) operates to limit the extent to which defendants can attribute legal fault at trial to defendants who were dismissed through no-fault summary judgment.

Failing to do so may result in the trial court denying this request and granting summary judgment.Plaintiff Lisa Braganza sued Albertson’s grocery store for personal injuries stemming from premises liability and negligence as a result of slipping and falling due to spilled water on the floor while a customer at the store. Albertson’s moved for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §437c on the grounds that (1) the floor in the area of the fall was not unsafe as Plaintiff claimed during discovery; (2) even if wet, the floor was not unsafe due to a coefficient of friction test performed by Albertson’s expert; and (3) Albertson’s had neither actual nor constructive notice that the floor was wet.HEARING DATE AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCEThe hearing date was set for March 6, 2019. One day before Plaintiff’s opposition was due she sought a continuance of the hearing date for 45 days to conduct discovery by way of her attorney’s declaration.

Prior to this change, a party could file the amended pleading on the eve of the hearing. Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Motions The court is only required to rule upon objections to evidence that it deems material to the motion, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(q). Any evidentiary objection not ruled on by the court is preserved for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in relying solely on the locality factor. California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (d) provides: “Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations. An objection based on the failure to comply with the requirements of this subdivision, if not made at the hearing, shall be deemed waived.”

The Court has not ruled that the trade secret claim will succeed, only that it does not fail as a matter of law on undisputed facts.”Filed by the Plaintiff: Only two of the MSJs in our review set were filed by the plaintiff, and both were denied on the ground that there were triable issues of material fact.Procedural Deficiencies: California state courts take very seriously the procedural requirements applicable to MSJs, and it is essential to follow California Code of Civil Procedure §437c to the letter. For example, at least one MSJ was denied in part because the moving party failed to submit a procedurally-compliant separate statement of undisputed facts.

re Sufficient To State Claim For Age DiscriminationSheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) Kathryn Sheppard filed a brief, two-and-a-half page complaint in federal court alleging discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and wrongful termination under Oregon state law. The district court dismissed Sheppard's complaint with prejudice under FRCP 8(a)(2) after concluding she had failed to plead a cause of action with sufficient factual detail to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations."Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted In Race Discrimination CaseBatarse v. Service Employees Int'l Union, 209 Cal. App. 4th 820 (2012) Ray Batarse sued the SEIU for race discrimination, among other things, associated with the termination of his employment. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment based upon Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3) because of Batarse's failure to include a separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts. Batarse asserted on appeal that the court had abused its discretion by failing to grant him a continuance in order to file a proper separate statement. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the SEIU after determining that Batarse had not established any prejudice arising from the denial of an opportunity to correct the defective separate statement because the evidence cited by Batarse in his opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact. Among other things, the court noted that the SEIU had produced substantial evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination – including that Batarse had made false statements regarding his law practice during the application process and had failed to disclose that he had resigned from the State Bar while disciplinary charges were pending against him. Moreover, when the decision was made t

Batarse v. Service Employees Int’l Union, 209 Cal. App. 4th 820 (2012)Ray Batarse sued the SEIU for race discrimination, among other things, associated with the termination of his employment. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment based upon Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3) because of Batarse’s failure to include a separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts. Batarse asserted on appeal that the court had abused its discretion by failing to grant him a continuance in order to file a proper separate statement. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the SEIU after determining that Batarse had not established any prejudice arising from the denial of an opportunity to correct the defective separate statement because the evidence cited by Batarse in his opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact.