detailed analysis in California

2025And, in their motion and separate statement, defendants 4 We therefore disagree with court of appeal decisions such as Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081 , to the extent they mandate that a trial court conduct a prima facie review of the moving party’s evidence despite the absence of an opposing separate statement.

2025And, in their motion and separate statement, defendants 4 We therefore disagree with court of appeal decisions such as Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081 , to the extent they mandate that a trial court conduct a prima facie review of the moving party’s evidence despite the absence of an opposing separate statement.

2025(See id. at pp. 1112–1113 [“when an agency determines a particular environmental effect of a project is not significant, the EIR does not have to contain a detailed analysis in support of that determination”; rather “all the EIR must address reduction in stream flow as a potential environmental effect of the project.” (Id. at pp. 1111–1112.) 56 contain is a ‘statement briefly indicating the reasons for’ that determination”]; § 21100, subd. (c).) Here, as with the latter statement in Amador, we can readily discern from the EIR why Metro determined the movement of gondola cabins across views of

2015(Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 , 1112–1113 (Amador).) However, a detailed analysis is not necessary.

2025Thus, if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under subdivision (b)(3) to deny the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim.4 This was not a case involving “a single, simple issue with minimal evidentiary support” such that the trial court may have had an obligation to “consider the merits unaccompanied

2025Thus, if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under subdivision (b)(3) to deny the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim. 4 This was not a case involving “a single, simple issue with minimal evidentiary support” such that the trial court may have had an obligation to “consider the merits unaccompanie

2022Santiago v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1318 involved employees’ claims under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b), which provides an exception to the general rule that workers’ compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy for injured workers, permitting an action for damages against the employer where the employee’s injury is aggravated by the employer’s “ ‘fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment.’ ” (Santiago. at p. 1323.) Santiago held the employees were required to show the employer had actual knowledge of the

2022Santiago v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1318 involved employees’ claims under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b), which provides an exception to the general rule that workers’ compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy for injured workers, permitting an action for damages against the employer where the employee’s injury is aggravated by the employer’s “ ‘fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment.’ ” (Santiago. at p. 1323.) Santiago held the employees were required to show the employer had actual knowledge of the

2021Under the law, [Phelan is] not entitled to such a detailed analysis.” (People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 128 .) Here, the statement of decision fairly disclosed the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in dispute in each phase of the proceedings.

2020Under the law, [Phelan is] not entitled to such a detailed analysis.” (People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 128 .) Here, the statement of decision fairly disclosed the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in dispute in each phase of the proceedings.

2021In sum, “after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances” (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 3 ), we cannot conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could find the machete to be inherently deadly or dangerous.

2021In sum, “after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances” (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 3 ), we cannot conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could find the machete to be inherently deadly or dangerous.

2021(Brunton, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1107 .) The court concluded when an assault is based on “a defendant’s single act of using a noninherently dangerous object in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury, section 245[, subdivisions] (a)(1) and (4) are merely different statements of the same offense such that the defendant may not be convicted of violating both subparts of the subdivision.” (Id. at p. 1107.) Here, defendant committed one discrete act using a knife, not a multifaceted attack.

2020After the Attorney General filed his brief, on November 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the parties in Aguayo to brief the issue of whether “assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury [is] a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon.” 9 legislative history” of the larceny and embezzlement statutes before concluding they “constituted mere restatements of the same offense, even though they ‘have different elements,’ ‘neither is a lesser included offense of the other,’ and they are found in ‘self- contained’ statutes.” (Brunton, at pp. 1106-1107.) Relying on

2020Based on our conclusion that “the [Construction] Contracts did not include a financing component” (Davis I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 291 ), which is consistent with the terms of the Facilities Lease stating Fresno Unified’s obligations must not in any way be construed as debt or creating an indebtedness, it follows that the Construction Contracts are not “in the nature of, or directly relate[d] to a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness.” (Kaatz, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) Consequently, the Construction Contracts are not “contracts” for purposes of Gove

2020Based on our conclusion that “the [Construction] Contracts did not include a financing component” (Davis I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 291 ), which is consistent with the terms of the Facilities Lease stating Fresno Unified’s obligations must not in any way be construed as debt or creating an indebtedness, it follows that the Construction Contracts are not “in the nature of, or directly relate[d] to a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness.” (Kaatz, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) Consequently, the Construction Contracts are not “contracts” for purposes of Gove

2020KG Farms’ claim raises the issue of “whether [the] EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts is adequate, that is, whether the discussion sufficiently performs the function of facilitating ‘informed agency decisionmaking and informed public participation.’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 513 ; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1123 [EIR acknowledged an impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation measures; the acknowledgment was inadequate and a more detailed analysis of how adverse the

2020KG Farms’ claim raises the issue of “whether [the] EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts is adequate, that is, whether the discussion sufficiently performs the function of facilitating ‘informed agency decisionmaking and informed public participation.’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 513 ; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1123 [EIR acknowledged an impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation measures; the acknowledgment was inadequate and a more detailed analysis of how adverse the

2020Based on our conclusion that “the [Construction] Contracts did not include a financing component” (Davis I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 291 ), which is consistent with the terms of the Facilities Lease stating Fresno Unified’s obligations must not in any way be construed as debt or creating an indebtedness, it follows that the Construction Contracts are not “in the nature of, or directly relate[d] to a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness.” (Kaatz, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) Consequently, the Construction Contracts are not “contracts” for purposes of Gove

2020Based on our conclusion that “the [Construction] Contracts did not include a financing component” (Davis I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 291 ), which is consistent with the terms of the Facilities Lease stating Fresno Unified’s obligations must not in any way be construed as debt or creating an indebtedness, it follows that the Construction Contracts are not “in the nature of, or directly relate[d] to a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness.” (Kaatz, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) Consequently, the Construction Contracts are not “contracts” for purposes of Gove

2019(See Bay-Delta, supra , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1176 , 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 , 184 P.3d 709 ; Town of Atherton, supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 346 , 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 .) This allegation does not appear in the operative petition.

2019(See Bay-Delta, supra , 43 Cal.4th at p. 1176 , 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 , 184 P.3d 709 ; Town of Atherton, supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 346 , 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 .) This allegation does not appear in the operative petition.

2018All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matter as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. . . . ’ ” (People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 592, fn. 7 , quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Caldwell argues that the court’s detailed analysis of the evidence indicates that it inappropriately discounted its import: “[D]ecades later, some previously silent witnesses to the shooting have provided declarations that state Caldwell was not the shotgun shooter.

2018All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matter as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. . . . ’ ” (People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 592, fn. 7 , quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Caldwell argues that the court’s detailed analysis of the evidence indicates that it inappropriately discounted its import: “[D]ecades later, some previously silent witnesses to the shooting have provided declarations that state Caldwell was not the shotgun shooter.

2018A court abuses its discretion if its ruling is so irrational or arbitrary that *33 no reasonable person could agree with it. ( Property California SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1155 , 1162, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 .) An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and the relevant circumstances, the court's decision exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in *828 a miscarriage of justice. ( Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329 , 378, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) The trial court here engaged in a detailed analysis of each party's results, taking into

2018A court abuses its discretion if its ruling is so irrational or arbitrary that *33 no reasonable person could agree with it. ( Property California SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1155 , 1162, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 .) An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and the relevant circumstances, the court's decision exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in *828 a miscarriage of justice. ( Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329 , 378, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) The trial court here engaged in a detailed analysis of each party's results, taking into

2003(See for example In re Lorenzo G, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 562 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court's determination is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn H., supra, 2

2002(See, e.g., In re Lorenzo C., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

2003(See for example In re Lorenzo G, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 562 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court's determination is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn H., supra, 2

2003(See for example In re Lorenzo G, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 562 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court's determination is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn H., supra, 2

2003(See for example In re Lorenzo G, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 562 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court's determination is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn H., supra, 2

2003(See for example In re Lorenzo G, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 562 ; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ; In re Cristella C., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court's determination is supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn H., supra, 2

2000The City of Oceanside Case In City of Oceanside, supra, 81 Cal. App.4th 269 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 , our colleagues in Division 1 of this district viewed the limitation that "[t]he [firefighter's] rule does not apply to ... independent acts of misconduct that are committed after the [public safety officer] has arrived on the scene" as a common law exception to the rule. ( Id. at p. 275, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 .) Whether we accept this characterization or not, the issue remains the same: When one public safety officer injures another during their joint response to an emergency, may the former be liab

2000The City of Oceanside Case In City of Oceanside, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 269 , our colleagues in Division One of this district viewed the limitation that “ ‘[t]he [firefighter’s] rule does not apply to . . . independent acts of misconduct that are committed after the [public safety officer] has arrived on the scene’ ” as a common law exception to the rule.