California
Appeals

Garlock Sealing v. Nak Sealing-C050813-3/21/07 CA3

 

Aug 11 2008

A117128 [PDF] [DOC]

Madden v. Summit View 8/11/08 CA1/1

Madden_v_Summit_View_A117128_Privette-Toland_Doctrine_Summary_Judgment

Summary_Judgmentfactual issues warranting a triaMadden_v_Summit_ViewMadden v. Summit View

Standard of Review
Table of Contents
factual issues warranting a trial

A.  Standard of Review

            On appeal after a trial court has granted summary judgment, we review the record de novo to determine whether the evidence submitted for and against the motion discloses material factual issues warranting a trial.  (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334–335 & fn. 7.)

            Summary judgment is properly granted when no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)  A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more of its elements cannot be established or that there is a complete defense.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a), (o)(2).)  Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “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. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, fn. omitted.)