Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication in California
This blog post will outline the issues involved in preparing an effective opposition to a motion for summary judgment/adjudication in California.
A motion for summary judgment/adjudication in California is filed when a defendant contends the lawsuit filed by plaintiff has no merit and that there are no triable issues of material fact. It can also be filed by a plaintiff who contends that defendant has no defense(s) to the lawsuit and there are no triable issues of material fact.
The motion for summary judgment/adjudication can be made only after sixty (60) calendar days have passed since the general appearance of the other party, in other words 60 calendar days since the complaint has been filed, or the answer to the complaint has been filed.
The motion must be served and filed at least seventy five (75) calendar days before the hearing, and if the motion is served by mail an additional five (5) calendar days must be added to the notice period if the place of address is within the State of California.
Any opposition must be served and filed at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the hearing and must include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed.
For unlawful detainer (eviction) actions the motion may be made at any time after the defendant has filed their answer on five (5) calendar days notice. Summary judgment shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a regular civil motion for summary judgment.
Any opposition to a motion for summary judgment in an eviction proceeding may be made orally at the hearing, or if the opposing party wishes the Court to consider written opposition the opposition may be filed at least one (1) court day before the hearing with service made by personal delivery to the moving party, or overnight mail.
The Court must allow all parties to present oral argument at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See Brannon v. Superior Court (Crippen) (2004) 114 Cal.App. 4th 1203, 1211.
While many motions for summary judgment are made many are not granted since the motion can only be granted when there are no triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
And summary judgment is proper only if the affidavits in support of the motion, strictly construed, contain facts sufficient to entitle the moving party to judgment, and those of the opposing party, liberally construed, fail to show there is material issue of fact. Thus, the party moving for summary judgment has a very great burden of proof.
The moving party must demonstrate that under no hypothesis is there a material factual issue requiring a trial. That is because absent the proper circumstances for a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, the parties to a lawsuit are entitled to a trial, either by the court or by jury.
And issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the pivot upon which summary judgment law turns.
California case law is well settled that any doubts regarding a Summary Judgment Motion must be resolved in favor of the opposing party. The declarations of the moving party are strictly construed, those of the opposing party are liberally construed, and doubts as to whether a summary judgment should be granted must be resolved in favor of the opposing party; the court focuses on issue finding, and it does not resolve issues of fact.
And if the evidence presented is equally conflicting the motion should be denied.
The facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be accepted as true.
And the affidavits and declarations in opposition to a motion for summary judgment need only disclose the existence of a triable issue, they do not need to prove the opposition’s case.
If the terms of a contract are at issue and any of its provisions are ambiguous or unclear, a California Court of Appeal has ruled that the trial court should not grant summary judgment but allow the parties a full opportunity to produce evidence of facts, circumstances and condition surrounding execution of contract and conduct of parties relative thereto.
The author of this article, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal with over 15 years of experience in civil litigation in California Courts. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information.
