Case Name:   Peter Isherwood, et al. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., et al.

     

Case No.:       1-13-CV-245098

 

Motion for Summary Judgment to the First Amended Complaint and Cross-Complaint by Defendant and Cross-Defendant Full Speed Ahead, Inc.

 

On June 3, 2014, defendant and cross-defendant Full Speed Ahead, Inc. (“FSA”) filed the motion presently before the court, a motion for summary judgment to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and Cross-Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.)  FSA has filed a request for judicial notice and objections to evidence in conjunction with the motion.  In opposition, cross-complainant Fox Factory, Inc. dba Fox Racing Shox (“Fox”) has requested a continuance of the motion to conduct additional discovery.  No trial date has been set.

 

Evidence

 

FSA’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.  (See Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); see also Stepan v. Garcia (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 497, 500 [the court may take judicial notice of its own file].)

 

FSA’s objections to evidence are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.  The court overrules objection nos. 1 and 2.  The court sustains objection nos. 3, 4, and 5.

 

Motion for Summary Judgment

 

FSA seeks an order from the court for summary judgment with respect to the FAC and Cross-Complaint on the ground that there is no evidence showing that FSA caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.

 

“Summary judgment is properly granted when no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more of its elements cannot be established or that there is a complete defense.  Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff ‘to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.’  ‘There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.’”  (Madden v. Summit View, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 1267, 1272 [internal citations omitted].)

 

In opposition, Fox seeks to continue the motion to conduct additional discovery.

“A plaintiff generally cannot defeat a well-founded summary judgment motion without setting forth specific facts controverting the motion.  An exception is made for an opposing party who has not had an opportunity to marshal the evidence, and a summary judgment motion will be denied or continued if the opposing party declares that ‘facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented.’  Upon such a declaration, the trial court’s discretion is strictly limited and a continuance may be mandated.”  (Mary Morgan, Inc. v. Melzark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4^th 765, 770.)

 

“The nonmoving party seeking a continuance must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts.  The trial court need not grant a continuance where the proposed discovery is focused on matters beyond the scope of the dispositive issues framed by the pleadings.”  (Ace American Ins. Co. v. Walker (2004) 121 Cal.App.4^th 1017, 1023.)

 

“When a continuance of a summary judgment motion is not mandatory, because of a failure to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), the court must determine whether the party requesting the continuance has nonetheless established good cause therefore.  That determination is within the court’s discretion.”  (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4^th 709, 716.)

 

Here, FSA’s motion for summary judgment is primarily based on the argument that there is no evidence showing that its component on the subject bicycle caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.  (See FSA’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts at Nos. 6, 7, 9, and 20; Declaration of David Mitchell at ¶¶ 5, 6, and 12.)  According to the declaration of Paul Rosenlund, counsel for Fox, a continuance is necessary to allow its experts and metallurgists to investigate and evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims, how the accident occurred, and the potential involvement of the component parts of the subject bicycle.  (See Declaration of Paul S. Rosenlund at ¶ 5.)  Fox claims that these expert opinions are not available to support the opposition because the expert analysis of the bicycle and related components is not complete.  (Ibid.)  Furthermore, no depositions have taken place and Fox intends to depose Plaintiffs and other witnesses in the case along with FSA’s expert, David Mitchell.  (Id. at ¶¶ 4-6.)  Fox contends that this discovery has been slowed by the non-responsiveness of Plaintiffs’ counsel, difficulty in scheduling Mitchell’s deposition, and the burdensome task of pursuing discovery against plaintiffs who reside in another country.  (Id. at ¶¶ 3 and 6.)  Therefore, at a minimum, the court finds that Fox has provided good cause to continue FSA’s motion for summary judgment.

 

Disposition

 

FSA’s motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to allow Fox to obtain the needed discovery.