Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH CENTRAL
10
18
19 INTRODUCTION
20
21 The Plaintiffs submit this Sur-reply in response to Defendant REA 2003-1, LLC’s
22 (hereinafter “REA”) reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant, REA’s Motion for Summary
23 Judgment.
24 ///
25 As this Court knows, typically when a party files a motion, opposing counsel is entitled
26 to file an “Opposition”, or otherwise respond as they see fit. The moving party is in turn allowed
27 to file a “Reply”; and, unless permission is given by the court for the filing of additional briefs,
28 the parties appear at a hearing on the motion, and the court makes its ruling. However, here, the
1
SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT, REA 2003-1, LLC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO REA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Plaintiffs’ are compelled to submit this Sur-reply to address the serious and extensive
2 mischaracterizations of fact and misapplications of law that are prevalent in Defendant, REA's
3 reply memorandum (Df. Reply Mem."). Although the hearing on this matter is just two days
4 away, defendants feel compelled to set the record straight on several points.
5
11 REA argues that “… REA’s policy is not “evidence” of the reasonable foreseeability of the
12 alleged conduct.” (REA Reply, 5:lines 9-10) Arguably, if one were looking solely for direct
13 evidence, e.g., employee’s history of a propensity toward violence, there may be some merit to
14 this point. However, under summary judgment law in ruling on [a] motion, the court must
15 "consider all of the evidence" and "all of the inferences" reasonably drawn therefrom (C.C.P.§
16 437c, subd. (c)), and must view such evidence (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25
17 Cal.4th 826, 857, 24 P.3d 493, 107 Cal. Rptr.2d 841, citing, (e.g., Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 46
18 Cal. 3d at p. 1107; Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 412, 417 [42
19 Cal. Rptr. 449, 398 P.2d 785]) and such inferences (see, e.g., Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger &
20 Harrison (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1509, 1520 [80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 94] [review on appeal]; Ales-
21 Peratis Foods Internat., Inc. v. American Can Co. (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 277, 280, [209 Cal.
22 Rptr. 917]), in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (underlying added) REA’s
24 ///
25 A reasonable juror may very well deduce from such an existing policy and procedure
26 memorandum, which is allegedly given to all employees, the inference that this memo was
27 generated because REA reasonably foresaw that security personnel might be moved to get
28
2
SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT, REA 2003-1, LLC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO REA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 physical with patrons under certain circumstances and establishing a hands-off policy would
2 direct address that foreseeable prohibited act.
3 Accordingly, REA’s policy and procedure memorandum is evidence from which a trier
4 of fact can draw an inference of “reasonable foreseeability” of the alleged misconduct by their
5 employees and therein establishing a triable issue of material fact.
6
13 Under summary judgment law a moving defendant must present evidence showing
14 the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence: The
15 defendant must show that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence, because otherwise the
16 plaintiff might be able to establish the elements of the cause of action; the defendant must also
17 show that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence, because the plaintiff must
18 be allowed a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion ( Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h)).
19 REA attempts to argue that “once the moving defendant shows that the plaintiff’s claim
20 has no merit, the burden of proving that a triable issue of fact still exists shifts to the plaintiff.”
21 However, this misstates the burden shifting aspect of summary judgment law.
22 From commencement to conclusion, the moving party bears the burden of persuasion that
23 there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
24 (Aguilar 25 Cal.4th at 845) Further, the Aguilar court held that “Summary judgment law in this
25 state…require[s] a defendant moving for summary judgment to present evidence, and not simply
26 point out that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.
27 (Id.at ) Also, the Court in Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson (9th Cir. 2000) 212 F.3d 528
28 concluded, the defendant must indeed present evidence": Whereas, under federal law,
3
SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT, REA 2003-1, LLC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO REA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 "pointing out through argument" ( id. at p. 532) may be sufficient, under state law, it is not.
2 (Aguilar citing, (see generally Schwarzer et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure
3 Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2001) PP 14:137 to 14:137.6, pp. 14-32 to 14-33 [setting out the
4 "disagree[ment]" of the "[c]ourts" on the issue]) (emphasis and underlining added)
5 Clearly, REA is “pointing out through argument” on the issue of ratification; applying the
6 federal standard, not the state standard that requires the presentment of admissible evidence in
7 order to carry their burden, which will then, and only then, shift the burden of production to
8 Plaintiffs. Based upon defendant’s anemic and evidence deficient argument on the issue of
9 ratification, REA has not met its burden therefore summary judgment should not be granted.
10
15
16 REA argues that “…plaintiffs have [ ] failed to meet their burden of proving severe
17 emotional distress.” This is not the burden an opposing party plaintiff must meet. Under
18 summary judgment law, a plaintiff opposing defendant’s motion need only produce evidence
19 that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than
21 Particularly telling is that REA concedes in its Reply that the Plaintiffs presented
22 evidence of physical and mental injury. (Reply, 8:lines10-12) But REA tries divert the Court
23 away from any inferences of severe emotional distress that may be drawn from other evidence
24 produced by Plaintiffs that include reports of headaches, sleep disorder, paranoia, loss of
25 consciousness, being scared, concussion to head and constant headaches; all components of
26 severe emotional distress inherent with the physical beating Plaintiffs endured at the hands and
28
4
SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT, REA 2003-1, LLC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO REA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 The above listed symptoms are far more significant symptoms indicative of severe
2 emotional distress than the characterizations REA proffered in their Reply, to wit, “… assertions
3 [of] discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation.”
4 Thus, having met the proper burden of production pertaining to this element, REA’s
5 motion for summary judgment must be denied.
6
7 CONCLUSION
8
For the aforementioned reasons Plaintiffs ask that REA’s Motion for Summary Judgment
9
10 and/or Summary Adjudication be denied so that its case may be properly and justly tried on its
11 merits.
12
13
Dated: April 07, 2010
14
Attorney for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT, REA 2003-1, LLC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO REA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION