City of Emeryville v. Superior Court

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1464·2 Cal. App. 4th 21·2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 826·91 Daily Journal DAR 16004·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10207
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1991A055362California1,609 words

Opinion

Opinion

Merrill, J.

We address the question of whether a court has jurisdiction to grant summary judgment or summary adjudication when the defendant presents a valid defense. Between 1939 and 1991 the answer was clear and affirmative. In 1990, the Legislature amended the summary judgment statute to solve different problems and in the process cast doubt upon well-established law. We grant a writ of mandate to restate the defendant’s right to establish a defense.

The City of Emeryville (Emeryville) is a cross-defendant in an action brought by a motorist injured in a collision between her car and a vehicle fleeing the Emeryville police. Emeryville moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication of causes of action, claiming immunity because it had adopted a vehicle pursuit policy under the standards set by Vehicle Code section 17004.7. During the hearing on the motion, counsel for cross-complainant Avis Rent-A-Car System (Avis), owner of the chased vehicle, objected to the court’s jurisdiction to rule that Emeryville’s affirmative defense was valid. The court agreed with Avis. By written order, the court stated that it found merit to Emeryville’s motion, but that it did not have…

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.