Melzark

Mary Morgan, Inc. v. Melzark

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 900·49 Cal. App. 4th 765·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4·96 Daily Journal DAR 11719·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7164
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 1996A073240California1,954 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

Summary judgment was granted to defendants when plaintiff failed to present controverting evidence after being granted a continuance for that purpose and instead used the continuance time period to file a request to dismiss the action without prejudice to reasserting the same claims challenged on the summary judgment motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subd. (h), 581, subds. (b)(1), (c).) Plaintiff appeals, claiming it was entitled to dismiss the action despite the pendency of the motions and that the dismissal divested the trial court of its power to rule on the summary judgment motions. We affirm the judgment, holding that a plaintiff may not dismiss an action without prejudice after an adverse tentative summary judgment ruling has been announced and the hearing has commenced and is continued for the express and exclusive purpose of permitting the plaintiff an opportunity to produce opposition evidence it claims was previously unavailable.

Facts

In January 1995, appellant Mary Morgan, Inc., sued multiple parties to cancel a deed of trust attached to real property it acquired in settlement of litigation. Summary judgment motions were filed separately by respondents…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.