PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Ruling on Motion
.........Issues of Law Only
16 Cards On This Topic:

Even assuming implied contractual indemnity claim may be predicated on alleged breach of easement duty, PG&E's immunity from liability under CC 846 to owner of property where injury occurred bars recovery of indemnification.

SJ properly granted to defendants where plaintiff's causes of action were based upon a noncompetition clause that was invalid under B&PC §16600.

Summary judgment properly granted as to P's PAGA claims where P's PAGA notice only gave notice of P's claims and failed to include any notice of potential claims of similarly situated employees.

Summary judgment erroneously granted when depositor may maintain an action for conversion against his bank.

SJ for County affirmed as respondeat superior did not apply to unassigned SW who after work sexually assaulted a minor whom he had driven to a foster placement during the workday.

Bank obtaining property via foreclosure sale not entitled to SJ as it wrongfully evicted tenants whose lease survived the foreclosure.

Reasonable inference that store patron would not have hit cashier had a security guard been beside him; as it is question of fact whether security service liable for cashier's injuries, SJ for security service reversed.

Court erred in finding action against Caltrans for accident at off-ramp without a guardrail was barred by design immunity as a matter of law; second element of design immunity defense is question of fact for jury.

D awarded SJ because absent factual dispute re meaning of insurance policy language, construction and application of insurance contract strictly issue of law.

SJ for employer inappropriate where issue of whether there was a hostile work environment was a factual question for trier of fact.

D not entitled to SJ where liability turns on question for jury: Whether independent act was not foreseeable, therefore considered a superseding cause cutting off D’s liability.

Ct. may grant SJ motion if it finds legally significant material fact, undisputed in separate statements, which would entitle movant to SJ, even if issue not explicitly tendered.

Where no dispute over facts re sole basis for D’s motion for SJ, only dispute is over legal effect and significance of undisputed facts, a pure matter of law.

Where no material issue of fact to be tried and sole question remaining one of law, duty of ct. to determine issue of law.

SJ appropriate where P's testimony re memories of childhood sex abuse, refreshed by sodium amytal, barred as matter of law for failure to meet Kelly test.

Primary assumption of risk supports summary judgment for D where P injured on sportfishing trip.