pleadings before hearing in California

2025Co.).) “To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264–1265.) “[T]he pleadings ‘delimit the scope of the issues’ to be determined and ‘[t]he complaint measures the materiality of the facts tendered in a defendant’s challenge

2024“If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion.” ( Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264-1265 .) LaBrot did not do so here.

2026On a motion for summary judgment, however, “ ‘The pleadings delimit the issues to be considered … . [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave

2025It is well established that “ ‘[t]he pleadings delimit the issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party s

2019"To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be *297 directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party's evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion." ( Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264-1265, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 813 ; see Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403 , 421, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 739 ["A moving party seeking summary judgment or adjudication i

2019"To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be *297 directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party's evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion." ( Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264-1265, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 813 ; see Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403 , 421, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 739 ["A moving party seeking summary judgment or adjudication i

2025(See Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, 626, 636 [affirming summary judgment in a personal injury action in part because plaintiff raised in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment “a new duty not previously alleged”]; ibid. [if evidence of the party opposing summary judgment “ ‘would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion’ ”]; cf. Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 717, 720, 726, 729, 731 [affirm

2025(See Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, 626, 636 [affirming summary judgment in a personal injury action in part because plaintiff raised in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment “a new duty not previously alleged”]; ibid. [if evidence of the party opposing summary judgment “ ‘would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion’ ”]; cf. Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 717, 720, 726, 729, 731 [affirm

2018(Bostom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 , 1663–1664.) Although plaintiffs here did not present any evidence in opposition to the motion, much less evidence on a failure to warn theory, we note even if they had done so, it would not have been a substitute for seeking leave to amend. “‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pl

2017(See Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1176 , 1186, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 796 [" '[i]f the opposing party's evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion' "]; Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 , 1663-1664, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 669 ["[i]f either party wishes the trial court to consider a previously unpleaded issue in connection with a motion for summary judgment, it may request leave to amend"].) Plaintiffs could hav

2018(Bostom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 , 1663–1664.) Although plaintiffs here did not present any evidence in opposition to the motion, much less evidence on a failure to warn theory, we note even if they had done so, it would not have been a substitute for seeking leave to amend. “‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pl

2017(See Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1176 , 1186, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 796 [" '[i]f the opposing party's evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion' "]; Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 , 1663-1664, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 669 ["[i]f either party wishes the trial court to consider a previously unpleaded issue in connection with a motion for summary judgment, it may request leave to amend"].) Plaintiffs could hav

2025(See Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, 626, 636 [affirming summary judgment in a personal injury action in part because plaintiff raised in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment “a new duty not previously alleged”]; ibid. [if evidence of the party opposing summary judgment “ ‘would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion’ ”]; cf. Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 717, 720, 726, 729, 731 [affirm

2025(See Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, 626, 636 [affirming summary judgment in a personal injury action in part because plaintiff raised in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment “a new duty not previously alleged”]; ibid. [if evidence of the party opposing summary judgment “ ‘would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion’ ”]; cf. Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 717, 720, 726, 729, 731 [affirm

2021(Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1254 (Conroy ); Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648 .) “Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not

2021(Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1254 (Conroy ); Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648 .) “Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not

2021(Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1254 (Conroy ); Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648 .) “Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not

2021(Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1254 (Conroy ); Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648 .) “Thus, a ‘defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.’ [Citation.] ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not

2025Co.).) “To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264–1265.) “[T]he pleadings ‘delimit the scope of the issues’ to be determined and ‘[t]he complaint measures the materiality of the facts tendered in a defendant’s challenge

2008Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98-99, fn. 4 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 820 ].) “To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264-1265 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 813 ].) “[T]he pleadings ‘delimit the scope of the issues’ to be dete

2022In other words: “To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion.” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264–1265, italics added; see also Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend complaint three days before

2021(Huff, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 746 .) A trial court may also deny the request if it would cause prejudice to the other party or if the party seeking to amend has failed to act diligently in requesting amendment.

2021Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95 , 98–99, fn. 4.) ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]’ (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1264– 1265.) ‘[T]he pleadings “delimit the scope of the issues” to be determined and “[t]he complaint measures the mat

2008Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98-99, fn. 4 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 820 ].) “To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]” (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264-1265 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 813 ].) “[T]he pleadings ‘delimit the scope of the issues’ to be dete

2021(See Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1253 [“ ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]’ ”]; Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 [“ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.]’ ”].) 17 DISPOSITION The judgment is affir

2021(See Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1253 [“ ‘To create a triable issue of material fact, the opposition evidence must be directed to issues raised by the pleadings. [Citation.] If the opposing party’s evidence would show some factual assertion, legal theory, defense or claim not yet pleaded, that party should seek leave to amend the pleadings before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]’ ”]; Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 [“ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.]’ ”].) 17 DISPOSITION The judgment is affir

2012“Forfeiture is the ‘ “failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” ’ ” (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 521, fn. 3 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 , 235 P.3d 988 ].) While the trial court did not address forfeiture, we affirm a summary judgment if it is correct under any theory. “ ‘The trial judge’s stated reason for granting summary judgment is not binding on us because we review its ruling, not its rationale.’ ” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1009 .) Neither 7-Eleven nor the court was required to guess the predicate for the UCL cause of action.

2012“Forfeiture is the ‘ “failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” ’ ” (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 521, fn. 3 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 , 235 P.3d 988 ].) While the trial court did not address forfeiture, we affirm a summary judgment if it is correct under any theory. “ ‘The trial judge’s stated reason for granting summary judgment is not binding on us because we review its ruling, not its rationale.’ ” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1009 .) Neither 7-Eleven nor the court was required to guess the predicate for the UCL cause of action.

2001(See 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 227 ]; City of Hope Nat.

2001(See 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 227 ]; City of Hope Nat.