essential element claim in California

2024(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 (Guz).) Alternatively, a defendant meets its burden by submitting evidence “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence” supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, at p. 855 .) “Once the defendant meets the foregoing burden, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action . . . [and] set forth the specific showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . .

2023(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 .) Second, a defendant may submit evidence “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence” supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, at p. 855 .) Third, a defendant may show “that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The defendant accomplishes this task by establishing each element of that defense through the submission of admissible evidence.

2026(Rodriguez v. Parivar, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 739 , 752 (Rodriguez); see also Stoner v. Williams (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 986, 1002 [“The elements of a cause of action constitute the essential or ultimate facts in a civil case.”].) “Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 [“the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim”].) The issue here is whether the special verdict form as given contained all of the necessary ultimate fac

2025Proc., § 624.)” (J.P. v. Carlsbad Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 323, 338 .) “The elements of a cause of action constitute the essential or ultimate facts in a civil case.” (Stoner v. Williams (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 986, 1002 .) “Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 [“the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim”].) A special verdict must resolve every controverted issue in the case.

2026Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 .) A defendant satisfies its summary judgment burden by showing that the plaintiffs cannot prove an essential element of their claim.

2024(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 (Guz).) Alternatively, a defendant meets its burden by submitting evidence “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence” supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, at p. 855 .) “Once the defendant meets the foregoing burden, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action . . . [and] set forth the specific showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . .

2025Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2).) “A defendant meets its burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim” or “by submitting evidence ‘that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence’ supporting an essential element of its claim.” (Joshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814 , 823 (Joshi).) “‘Once the defendant meets the foregoing burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action.”’” (Ibid.; accord, § 437c,

2024(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 (Guz).) Alternatively, a defendant meets its burden by submitting evidence “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence” supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, at p. 855 .) “Once the defendant meets the foregoing burden, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action . . . [and] set forth the specific showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . .

2024In Loehr v. Ventura Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1083 , the Court of Appeal explained that where necessary information is missing from a government claim, “the test of substantial compliance controls” and “the court must ask whether sufficient information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim ‘to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit.’ ” (Ibid.) “The doctrine of substantial compliance, however, cannot cure total omission of an essential element from the clai

2024(See, e.g., Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1083 [rejecting plaintiff’s substantial compliance argument: “Nowhere in the letter is there a claim for money damages, nor, for that matter is there even an estimate of the amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss”].) “‘The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot cure the total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff’s failure to comply meaningfully with the statute.’ [Citations.] Thus, a failure to even estimate the amount of damages on the claim document cannot be

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2023To the parties, it furnishes the means, in many instances, of having their cause reviewed without great expense.” (Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 126-127 , italics omitted.) A trial court’s statement of decision “ ‘is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ ” (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 500 (Ermoian).) An “ ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim,” in contrast to “evidentiary facts” and “legal 12 conclusions.” (Central V

2020Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1379-1380 ; accord, Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 500 .) ‘When this rule is applied, the term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ (Central Valley General 13 Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 .) ‘Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.’ (Ibid.) Thus, a court is not expected to make findings with regard to ‘detailed evidentiary facts or to make minute findings as to individual items of evidence.’ (Nunes Turfgrass, Inc. v. Vaug

2020All that is required is an explanation of the factual and legal basis for the court’s decision regarding such principal controverted issues at trial as are listed in the request.’ ” (Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 44, 67-68 (Kazensky); accord Thompson, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 983.) “[T]he term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim. [Citation.] Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 ; accord Thompson, supr

2013Proc., § 632.) “[A] statement of decision is adequate if it fairly discloses the determinations as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case. [Citation.] When this rule is applied, the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim. [Citation.] Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions. [Citations.]” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 .) “[A] trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.” (Er

2015Hence, while the act of being armed with a firearm—that is, having ready access to a firearm (Bland, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 997 )—necessarily requires possession of the firearm, possession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” (Brimmer, at p. 795, citing People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 [a conviction for possession of a gun can also be based on 13 constructive possession of the gun] and People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive possession of a firear

2015Hence, while the act of being armed with a firearm—that is, having ready access to a firearm (Bland, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 997 )—necessarily requires possession of the firearm, possession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” ( Brimmer at p. 795 , citing People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 [a conviction for possession of a gun can also be based on constructive possession of the gun] and People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive possession of a firearm

2015Hence, while the act of being armed with a firearm—that is, having ready access to a firearm (Bland, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 997 )—necessarily requires possession of the firearm, possession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” (Brimmer, at p. 795, citing People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 [a conviction for possession of a gun can also be based on 13 constructive possession of the gun] and People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive possession of a firear

2015Hence, while the act of being armed with a firearm—that is, having ready access to a firearm (Bland, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 997 )—necessarily requires possession of the firearm, possession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” ( Brimmer at p. 795 , citing People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 [a conviction for possession of a gun can also be based on constructive possession of the gun] and People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive possession of a firearm

2021(People v. Tolliver (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1036, 1046 .) “[P]ossession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” (White, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 524 ; see also People v. Elder (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313-1314 .) Defendant contends “the evidence was insufficient to support the elements of knowledge and possession, both of which are required for conviction,” and incorporates his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s true findings on the section 12022 firearm enhancements, which requires knowledge and availability for us

2016A defendant is armed if the defendant has the specified weapon available for use, either offensively or defensively. [Citations.] As a recent Court of Appeal decision observed, ‘a firearm that is available for use as a weapon creates the very real danger it will be used.’ [Citation.] Therefore, ‘[i]t is the availability – the ready access – of the weapon that constitutes arming.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 991, 997 (Bland).) As a result of these principles, “not every commitment offense for unlawful possession of a gun necessarily involves being armed with the gun, if the

2014“Although attorney fees need not be strictly proportionate to the damages recovered (Riverside v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 561, 574 ), ‘[w]hen a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief [citation], the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all’ (Farrar v. Hobby (1992) 506 U.S. 103, 115 ).” (Chavez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 989 .) “Whether plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney fees for time spent litigating the single successful claim requires consideration of another established principle governing at

2013(Choate, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 324 quoting Farrar v. Hobby (1992) 506 U.S. 103, 115 [“When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, . . . the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.”].) Considering the plaintiffs’ limited success, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding no attorney fees.

2020Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1379-1380 ; accord, Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 500 .) ‘When this rule is applied, the term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ (Central Valley General 13 Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 .) ‘Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.’ (Ibid.) Thus, a court is not expected to make findings with regard to ‘detailed evidentiary facts or to make minute findings as to individual items of evidence.’ (Nunes Turfgrass, Inc. v. Vaug

2020All that is required is an explanation of the factual and legal basis for the court’s decision regarding such principal controverted issues at trial as are listed in the request.’ ” (Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 44, 67-68 (Kazensky); accord Thompson, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 983.) “[T]he term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim. [Citation.] Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 ; accord Thompson, supr

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2025“The primary purpose of a statement of decision is to facilitate appellate review.” (People v. Landlords Professional Services, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 68, 70 .) “‘The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 .) “‘[T]he term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ [Citation.] ‘Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.’ [Citation.] Thus, a

2025“The primary purpose of a statement of decision is to facilitate appellate review.” (People v. Landlords Professional Services, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 68, 70 .) “‘The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 .) “‘[T]he term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ [Citation.] ‘Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.’ [Citation.] Thus, a

2026(See Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227 [“[A] party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or 1 defense”].) In reply, Glickman argued that discovery sanctions could be imposed without violation of a prior court order, and citing Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 asserted that “N&D’s failure to preserve the relevant devices after receiving [ES

2026(See Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227 [“[A] party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or 1 defense”].) In reply, Glickman argued that discovery sanctions could be imposed without violation of a prior court order, and citing Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 asserted that “N&D’s failure to preserve the relevant devices after receiving [ES

2021Legal Principles If properly requested and required, a statement of decision must “explain[ ] the factual and legal basis for [the trial court's] decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial.” (§ 632.) A statement of decision “will be deemed adequate ‘if it fairly discloses the determinations as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ ” (Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 45 (Altavion); see Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘the trial court is not required t

2017Instead, it need do no more than state the grounds upon which the judgment rests, without necessarily specifying the particular evidence considered by the trial court in reaching its decision. [Citations.] ‘[A] trial court rendering a statement of decision under . . . section 632 is required to state only ultimate rather than evidentiary facts because findings of ultimate facts necessarily include findings on all intermediate evidentiary facts necessary to sustain them.’ ” (Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106 , 1124–1125.) “ ‘[T]he term “ultimate fact” generally refers to

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2024Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380 .) “[A] trial court is not required to make an express finding of fact on every factual matter controverted at trial, where the statement of decision sufficiently disposes of all the basic issues in the case.” (Bauer v. Bauer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118 ; see also, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, fn. 12 [“ ‘[T]he trial court is not required to respond point by point to issues posed in a request for a statement of decision.’ ”].) In this context, “the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such a

2025The doctrine of substantial compliance, however, ‘cannot cure total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff's failure to comply meaningfully with the statute.’ [Citation.] The test for substantial compliance is whether the face of the filed claim discloses sufficient information to enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the claim’s merits and settle it without the expense of litigation.” (Connelly v. County of Fresno (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 29, 38 .) According to plaintiff, the October 13, 2022 claim form that she presented to the District me

2025(See Gong, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 377–378 [“The ‘substantial compliance’ exception . . . does not ‘save’ [plaintiff’s claim] because there is no reference whatsoever in [the claim] to [defendant’s] alleged tortious behavior”]; Dilts, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 37 [“The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot cure the total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff’s failure to comply meaningfully with the statute”]; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 769 [plaintiff’s claim “bears little or no resemblance to a government tort claim” wh

2022A failure to find on an immaterial issue is not error.” ’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 163 .) Instead, “a court need only fairly disclose its determinations as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case,” and “ ‘the term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ ” (Metis Development LLC v. Bohacek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 679, 689 .) 7 II.

2022A failure to find on an immaterial issue is not error. [Citation.] In issuing a statement of decision, the trial court need not address each question listed in a party’s request.” ’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 163 .) Instead, “[t]o comply with a request for a statement of decision, a court need only fairly disclose its determinations as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case,” and “ ‘the term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ ” (Metis Development LLC v. Bohacek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 679, 6

2021(People v. Tolliver (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1036, 1046 .) “[P]ossession of a firearm does not necessarily require that the possessor be armed with it.” (White, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 524 ; see also People v. Elder (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313-1314 .) Defendant contends “the evidence was insufficient to support the elements of knowledge and possession, both of which are required for conviction,” and incorporates his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s true findings on the section 12022 firearm enhancements, which requires knowledge and availability for us

2016A defendant is armed if the defendant has the specified weapon available for use, either offensively or defensively. [Citations.] As a recent Court of Appeal decision observed, ‘a firearm that is available for use as a weapon creates the very real danger it will be used.’ [Citation.] Therefore, ‘[i]t is the availability – the ready access – of the weapon that constitutes arming.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 991, 997 (Bland).) As a result of these principles, “not every commitment offense for unlawful possession of a gun necessarily involves being armed with the gun, if the

2026(Rodriguez v. Parivar, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 739 , 752 (Rodriguez); see also Stoner v. Williams (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 986, 1002 [“The elements of a cause of action constitute the essential or ultimate facts in a civil case.”].) “Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 [“the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim”].) The issue here is whether the special verdict form as given contained all of the necessary ultimate fac

2025Proc., § 624.)” (J.P. v. Carlsbad Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 323, 338 .) “The elements of a cause of action constitute the essential or ultimate facts in a civil case.” (Stoner v. Williams (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 986, 1002 .) “Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.” (Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 [“the term ‘ultimate fact’ generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim”].) A special verdict must resolve every controverted issue in the case.

2005Proc., § 437c, subd. ( o )(2).) A defendant meets its burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of plaintiff's claim. ( Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089 .) Alternatively, a defendant meets its burden by submitting evidence "that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 .) Since both summary judgment and summary adjudication motions involve purel

2005Proc., § 437c, subd. ( o )(2).) A defendant meets its burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of plaintiff's claim. ( Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089 .) Alternatively, a defendant meets its burden by submitting evidence "that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" supporting an essential element of its claim. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 .) Since both summary judgment and summary adjudication motions involve purel

2025(See Gong, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 377–378 [“The ‘substantial compliance’ exception . . . does not ‘save’ [plaintiff’s claim] because there is no reference whatsoever in [the claim] to [defendant’s] alleged tortious behavior”]; Dilts, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 37 [“The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot cure the total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff’s failure to comply meaningfully with the statute”]; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 769 [plaintiff’s claim “bears little or no resemblance to a government tort claim” wh

2015(Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 769 .) However, “[t]he doctrine of substantial compliance . . . ‘cannot cure [a] total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff’s failure to comply meaningfully with the statute.’ ” (Connelly v. County of Fresno, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 38 .) 11 It is undisputed that the mother’s e-mail does not state (1) the name of the claimant (i.e., the minor),4 (2) any post office address, (3) the amount of any damages claimed, (4) whether the amount of any damages claimed exceeded $10,000, and (5) whether a lawsui