Bradley

Security Pacific National Bank v. Bradley

Caution
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 267·4 Cal. App. 4th 89·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220·92 Daily Journal DAR 2897·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1992B047406California3,823 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff granted solely on the ground defendant failed to file a separate responsive statement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b). We hold, under the particular circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion by failing to afford defendant a further opportunity to file a proper separate statement.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Plaintiff, Security Pacific National Bank (Bank), filed an action in January 1985 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging breach of a loan guaranty and fraud by defendant Bradley. Bradley answered and filed a cross-complaint against the Bank. The case was assigned a trial date of September 25, 1989. On July 5, 1989, the Bank moved for summary judgment on its complaint and Bradley’s cross-complaint. Bradley, through counsel, opposed this motion, filing points and authorities, and a separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts.

The matter came on for hearing in August 1989. The Bank was represented by the law firm of Lillick & McHose. Bradley appeared in propria persona. The trial court denied the Bank’s motion for summary judgment,…

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.