Thatcher

Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 276·2000 Daily Journal DAR 4155·79 Cal. App. 4th 1081·94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2855
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2000E024929California1,851 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gaut, J.

Plaintiffs Michele Thatcher and Larry Thatcher appeal summary judgment entered against them and in favor of defendant Lucky Stores, Inc. Plaintiffs contend the trial court abused its discretion in denying their ex parte application for a continuance of defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs further argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground plaintiffs failed to file opposition, even though defendant had not met its initial burden of proof.

We conclude defendant met its initial burden of proof, and due to plaintiffs’ failure to file opposition, summary judgment was thus proper. We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ continuance request. Plaintiffs had a history of dilatory prosecution of their action, failed to respond to defendant’s extensive discovery, failed to file opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, and delayed in bringing their ex parte application for a continuance until the day of the summary judgment motion hearing. Furthermore, the trial court was not required to continue the summary judgment motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision…

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.