Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES IS DEFICIENT AS TO THE CLAIM FOR WILFUL MISCONDUCT AND ACCORDINGLY THE MOTION AS TO THAT CLAIM MUST BE DENIED
In a motion for summary adjudication, the moving party must specifically state in their motion and Separate Statement the specific causes of action, defenses, issues of duty and or claims of damages upon which summary adjudication is sought. Moreover, a defendant bringing a motion for summary adjudication “must … show one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established.” Marron v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 388, 392. The purpose of the Separate Statement is to inform the opposing party of what issues and undisputed material facts they must address in order to defeat the motion. Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 322.
Where a remedy as drastic as summary judgment is involved, due process requires a party to be fully advised of all the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail. San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Due to the drastic consequences at stake in considering motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication (i.e., the litigant’s constitutional right (Cal. Const. art. I, section 16) to a jury trial), technical compliance with rules governing summary judgment is required. See Bahl v. Bank of America (May 23, 2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 389 (technical compliance with code of civil procedure required to ensure there is no infringement on right to jury trial); Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 1591, 1607 (failure to comply with any one of the myriad requirements of §437c raises due process issues and is likely to be fatal to the motion). (See Part 8 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.