Second District Issues Strong Reminder Regarding Burden of Proof on Summary Judgment Motions
In two separate decisions yesterday, the Second District issued a strong reminder of the difference between raising a triable issue of fact and proving elements of a cause of action on summary judgment.
In Nielsen v. Beck (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC339322) the found that there remained a triable issue of fact as to whether an attorney continued to represent his client beyond a substitution of attorneys. The trial court ruled that continued conversation between counsel and his former client did not establish a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendants’ claim that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court disagreed, finding triable issues of fact as to the scope of the attorney’s continuing relationship with his client and regarding the actual date of termination of that relationship.
In Raven v. Gamette (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC337558), a tenant sued her landowner for negligent failure to secure the rental premises in light of previous criminal activity. The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that his tenant could not prove a causal link between her injuries and his failure to take safety precautions. The trial court agreed, ruling that plaintiff had “failed to submit admissible evidence establishing a causal link between her injuries . . . and . . . decedent’s alleged breach of duty [and t]hus, plaintiff failed to establish the element of causation in her cause of action for negligence.”
The Second District overturned the decision admonishing, “In order to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff only needed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to the issue of causation; she did not need to establish that element of her negligence cause of action.” (Emphasis added).
In Nielsen v. Beck (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC339322) the found that there remained a triable issue of fact as to whether an attorney continued to represent his client beyond a substitution of attorneys. The trial court ruled that continued conversation between counsel and his former client did not establish a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendants’ claim that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court disagreed, finding triable issues of fact as to the scope of the attorney’s continuing relationship with his client and regarding the actual date of termination of that relationship.
In Raven v. Gamette (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC337558), a tenant sued her landowner for negligent failure to secure the rental premises in light of previous criminal activity. The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that his tenant could not prove a causal link between her injuries and his failure to take safety precautions. The trial court agreed, ruling that plaintiff had “failed to submit admissible evidence establishing a causal link between her injuries . . . and . . . decedent’s alleged breach of duty [and t]hus, plaintiff failed to establish the element of causation in her cause of action for negligence.”
The Second District overturned the decision admonishing, “In order to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff only needed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to the issue of causation; she did not need to establish that element of her negligence cause of action.” (Emphasis added).
