§

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c

Section 437c - Motion for summary judgment
Section 437c - Motion for summary judgment

5 Citing briefs

  1. SALAS v. SIERRA CHEMICAL

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed September 19, 2011

    Thus, a defendant moving for summary judgment “bears the burden of persuasion that ‘one or more elements of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question ‘cannot be established,’ or that ‘there is a complete defense’ thereto. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, (Aguilar); Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (0) (2).) Such a defendant also “bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact exists. Once the initial burden of production is met, the burden shifts to [plaintiff] to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

  2. Hannah L Tye v. Wells Fargo Capital Finance, Llc et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims

    Filed December 8, 2016

    See Reid v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 366 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1000-01 (S.D. Cal. 2005); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f). To successfully oppose such a motion, a plaintiff must establish her right to punitive damages by “clear and convincing evidence.”

  3. Eric Witt v. Oil-Dri Corporation of America, et Al.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed July 25, 2016

    The Court may summarily adjudicate Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1). Summary adjudication of the claim is proper because he cannot show by “clear and convincing evidence” that Oil-Dri or Ziemnisky engaged in conduct with oppression, fraud, or malice.

  4. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93

    Filed August 18, 2010

    c. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled To Summary Judgment Under State Law For all the reasons discussed above, including the existence of disputed material facts, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion under state law. See Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 437c(g). Substantively, the claim that the City is not providing Plaintiffs with the emergency plan that they would like is not the same as being denied “full and equal access” to that which the City actually has (plus the evidence here that Plaintiffs, in Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 97 Filed 08/18/10 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:1402 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reality, have not been denied anything).

  5. CONNOR v. FIRST STUDENT

    Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed February 22, 2016

    Summary judgment is only appropriate when the “moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Cal. Code Civ.Proc. § 437c(c). “In ruling on the motion, the court must considerall of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and must view such evidenceand such inferences,in the light most favorable to the opposing party.”