Turley v. Familian Corp., No. A149752 (D1d2 Dec. 22, 2017)
Under D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1 (1974), you can’t avoid summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a witness that contradicts his or her deposition testimony. But for the rule to apply, it has to really contradict. There can’t just be ambiguities from which inferences of inconsistency could be drawn.
Which was the trial court’s mistake here. The testimony wasn’t really inconsistent with the declaration. In the course of saying it was, the trial court’s order mischaracterized the depo pretty badly. And in any event, none of it mattered because even the depo testimony, standing alone, was enough to crated a fact dispute such that summary judgment should have been denied.
Reversed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment