valid affirmative defense in California

2022Standards of review A party in a civil case is entitled to summary judgment if it can “show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (§ 437c, subd. (c).) The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing that a cause of action has “no merit” by showing either that the opposing party cannot establish “[o]ne or more of the elements of [its] cause of action” or by showing a valid affirmative defense. (§ 437c, subds. (o) & (p)(2).) If this burden is met, the “burden shifts” to the party opposing su

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing that a cause of action has “no merit” by showing either that the opposing party cannot establish “[o]ne or more of the elements of [his] cause of action” or by showing a valid affirmative defense. (§ 437c, subds. (o) & (p)(2).) If this burden is met, and only if this burden is met, the “burden shifts” to the party opposing summary judgment “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or [an affirmative] defense.” (Ibid.; Powell v. Kleinman 8 (2

2021(Id., subds. (o)(1), (p)(2).) If that burden is met, the “burden shifts” to the opposing party “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or [an affirmative] defense.” (Id., subd. (p)(2).) “ ‘There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.’ ” (Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1057 , quoting Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfiel

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing that a cause of action has “no merit” by showing either that the opposing party cannot establish “[o]ne or more of the elements of [his] cause of action” or by showing a valid affirmative defense. (§ 437c, subds. (o) & (p)(2).) If this burden is met, and only if this burden is met, the “burden shifts” to the party opposing summary judgment “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or [an affirmative] defense.” (Ibid.; Powell v. Kleinman 8 (2

2016Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Among other things, the moving party can show that it has a valid affirmative defense (id., subds. (o) & (p)(2)), including that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810 (Fox)) or by a contractual release (Jefferson v. Department of Youth Authority (2002) 28 Cal.4th 299, 301 ; Skrbina v. Fleming Companies (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 (Skrbina)).

2016(Burgueno, at p. 1057.) A. Dr. Peckson’s motion for summary judgment To prevail on a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove “‘(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence.’ [Citation.]” (Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (US) (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1190 .) The trial court granted summary judgment for

2013(See Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1091-1092; Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 443 ; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133 , 151- 152.) 17 Although there is no specific time limit contained in section 2983.3 for making the determination regarding a buyer's reinstatement right, section 2983.2 sets forth strict deadlines and notice requirements if the seller intends to or does seek a deficiency.

2013(See Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1091-1092; Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 443 ; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133 , 151- 152.) 17 Although there is no specific time limit contained in section 2983.3 for making the determination regarding a buyer's reinstatement right, section 2983.2 sets forth strict deadlines and notice requirements if the seller intends to or does seek a deficiency.

2013(See Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1091-1092; Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 443 ; Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133 , 151- 152.) 17 Although there is no specific time limit contained in section 2983.3 for making the determination regarding a buyer's reinstatement right, section 2983.2 sets forth strict deadlines and notice requirements if the seller intends to or does seek a deficiency.