Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
APPLICABLE LAW
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court must consider all of the evidence “and all of the inferences” reasonably drawn therefrom, and must view such evidence and such inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 C4th 826, 843. The courts sole function on a motion for summary judgment is issue-finding … not issue-determination. The judge must simply determine from the evidence submitted whether there is a “triable issue as to any material fact.” CCP § 437c(c); see Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 CA4th 915, 926; Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 CA4th 832, 839.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 C4th at 850. If there is a single such issue, the motion must be denied. Versa Technologies, Inc v. Sup.Ct. (Motsinger) (1978) 78 CA3d 237,240.
To be “material” for summary judgment purposes, the fact must relate to some claim or defense in issue under the pleadings. Also, it must be in some way essential to the judgment; i.e., if proved, it could change the outcome of the case. See Zavala v. Arce, supra, 58 CA4th at 926; Kelly v. First Astri Corp. (1999) 72 CA4th 462, 470.
Matters going to the weight of the evidence must be disregarded in ruling on the motion. Thus, one witness’ declaration may effectively controvert a dozen to the contrary. Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 C3d 18, 39; see Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 CA4th 832, 840. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.