Beatrice Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to grant its motion for summary judgment.

Facts

Petitioner (defendant) is a defendant in a personal injury action prosecuted by real parties in interest (plaintiffs). The complaint alleges that plaintiff Tamera Wilson suffered toxic shock syndrome from the use of a tampon manufactured by defendant Playtex, Inc.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment upon the ground that although Playtex, Inc. is its wholly owned subsidiary, Playtex, Inc. is an

[527]

independent corporation which alone is responsible for manufacture, distribution and sale of the product which injured plaintiff Tamera Wilson.

On February 19, 1986, the motion was heard by respondent court without a court reporter. After the motion had been orally denied, counsel for petitioner was directed to prepare an order. Counsel asked respondent court to identify the triable issues of fact which caused it to deny the motion. The court responded that there was a triable issue of fact as to the liability of Beatrice.

Petitioner’s counsel prepared a formal order stating in relevant part, “Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby denied on the grounds that there exists a triable issue of fact as to the liability of defendant Beatrice Companies, Inc.”

The order was signed on March 26, 1986, and filed on March 27, 1986.

This petition was filed on April 11, 1986.

Discussion

The petition was timely filed. The 15-day statutory time limit commenced no sooner than entry of the denial order on March 27, 1986. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (/).) Thus, the petition was timely filed on April 11, 1986, which was the 15th day after March 27, 1986.

The written denial order does not adequately specify the material facts as to which there is a triable issue and does not in any manner specify the evidence which indicates that such triable controversy exists as required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (g).) It is always possible to state that the liability of the moving party is at issue; such a general statement does not assist this court at all in reviewing the denial order.