Larry Minsky
Under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, subdivision (t),[1] a party is permitted to seek summary adjudication on: (1) a legal issue, or (2) a claim for damages other than punitive damages, even though said motion does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty. Before a party may bring such a motion, counsel for the parties whose claims or defenses are put at issue by such a motion must in advance of bringing said motion submit to the Court and serve on all parties to the action, a joint stipulation acknowledging that the motion will further the interests of judicial economy. The Court then has 15 days to advise counsel if the motion can be filed. If it so elects, the Court may set an informal conference to further evaluate the propriety of the filing of such a motion.[2]
Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), a party is permitted summary adjudication of an issue of duty even when such adjudication would not dispose of the entire claim or defense. (See: Linden Partners v Wilshire Linden Assocs. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 508, 522 [“We hold that on a motion for summary adjudication, the court may rule whether a defendant owes or does not owe a duty to plaintiff without regard for the dispositive effect of such ruling on other issues in the litigation, except that the ruling must completely dispose of the issue of duty.”].) Long before the need to obtain a stipulation, I had the opportunity to seek summary adjudication under subdivision (f) on the issues of defendant’s duty to reinstate plaintiff imposed by the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Despite the defendant’s argument that our request for summary adjudication would result in the adjudication of the entire complaint, the Court [Los Angeles Superior Court] concluded that whether the defendant had the duty to reinstate the plaintiff to her position would not completely dispose of our CFRA or FEHA causes of action. The Court concluded that issues of whether plaintiff sought reinstatement; whether plaintiff had a disability, as defined by the FEHA; and whether plaintiff had been reasonably accommodated still remained. Needless to say, the granting of our summary adjudication on issues of duty, went a long way in helping to put the case in a great posture for settlement.
Bottom line, summary adjudication can in the right situation become a very successful tool which we need to keep in mind.
Larry Minsky, Esq. is an experienced employment law attorney with an impressive track record of published/reported decisions, including Echazabel v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 221 F.3d 1347(9th Cir. 2000); reversed 536 U.S. 73, (2002); following remand 336 F. 3d 1023. Mr. Minsky is a frequent speaker on employment law issues. He owns and operates his own law firm and may be contacted at: 430 Havana Ave., Long Beach, CA 90814-1927; (562) 498-5826.
[1] CCP § 473c, subd. (t): Notwithstanding subdivision (f), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision.
(1) (A) Before filing a motion pursuant to this subdivision, the parties whose claims or defenses are put at issue by the motion shall submit to the court both of the following:
(i) A joint stipulation stating the issue or issues to be adjudicated.
(ii) A declaration from each stipulating party that the motion will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time or significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement.
(B) The joint stipulation shall be served on any party to the civil action who is not also a party to the motion.
(2) Within 15 days of receipt of the stipulation and declarations, unless the court has good cause for extending the time, the court shall notify the stipulating parties as to whether the motion may be filed. In making this determination, the court may consider objections by a nonstipulating party made within 10 days of the submission of the stipulation.
(3) If the court elects not to allow the filing of the motion, the stipulating parties may request, and upon request the court shall conduct, an informal conference with the stipulating parties to permit further evaluation of the proposed stipulation; however, the stipulating parties shall not file additional papers in support of the motion.
(4) (A) A motion for summary adjudication made pursuant to this subdivision shall contain a statement in the notice of motion that reads substantially similar to the following: “This motion is made pursuant to subdivision (t) of Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties to this motion stipulate that the court shall hear this motion and that the resolution of this motion will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time or significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement.”
(B) The notice of motion shall be signed by counsel for all parties, and by those parties in propria persona, to the motion.
(5) A motion filed pursuant to this subdivision may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.
[2] Ed. Note: It would be interesting to know what percentage of defendants have agreed to allow a plaintiff to bring a summary adjudication motion. Because damages will almost always be a question of fact, few plaintiffs can file for summary judgment. I suspect that subdivision (t) is an ineffective attempt at achieving a semblance of parity between defendants’ ability to obtain dismissal of a claim through summary judgment and plaintiffs’ ability to establish a defendant’s liability on a claim through summary adjudication. Perhaps allowing a plaintiff to file a concurrent motion to bifurcate damages and liability along with a motion for summary adjudication that completely disposes of all essential elements establishing liability would be fairer method of achieving parity between the opposing parties.