Smith v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 2013 No. E058833Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of the punitive damages claim because the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of presenting evidence to show that the plaintiffs could not reasonably obtain evidence to support their claim.

Issues

Whether the defendants met their initial burden of proof for summary adjudication regarding punitive damages.
Whether a motion for summary judgment or adjudication may be used to test the sufficiency of the pleadings.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“California law requires that “a defendant moving for summary judgment . . . present evidence, and not simply point out that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.””

“a motion for summary judgment or adjudication does not test the sufficiency of the pleadings.”

Filed 8/9/13 Smith v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ALVIN DEWEY SMITH et al.,

Petitioners, E058833

v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVBS1100281)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

POPPY STATE EXPRESS, INC., et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John B. Gibson,

Judge. Petition granted.

Mazis & Park, Dmitry Mazisyuk and Joseph Sedlacek Park for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

McElfish Law Firm, Raymond D. McElfish and Tyrone I. Toczauer for Real

Parties in Interest.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition thereto which we

conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. We have determined that

resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that

issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S.

Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Smith v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

RICHLI J.

CODRINGTON J.

AI Brief