2024825 – CURDY, JOSEPH vs CITY OF OAKDALE – a) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication; b) Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – (a) SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; (b) Defendant City of Oakdale’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – DENIED, as MOOT.
(a) Plaintiff’s request for a further continuance is denied. The request was not timely or sufficient under the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §437c(h).
Based on the moving and supporting papers and evidence, including the declaration of Det. Stilwell, and in the absence of a substantive opposition, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment on the entire action herein. Plaintiff has not established a statutory basis upon which to pursue a negligence theory against Defendant under the facts alleged herein. Assuming arguendo that the City of Oakdale Municipal Code §4-13 represents the duty alleged in this matter, this Court cannot conclude t
Hearing Date
January 15, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
2024825 – CURDY, JOSEPH vs CITY OF OAKDALE – a) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication; b) Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – (a) SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; (b) Defendant City of Oakdale’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – DENIED, as MOOT.
(a) Plaintiff’s request for a further continuance is denied. The request was not timely or sufficient under the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §437c(h).
Based on the moving and supporting papers and evidence, including the declaration of Det. Stilwell, and in the absence of a substantive opposition, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment on the entire action herein. Plaintiff has not established a statutory basis upon which to pursue a negligence theory against Defendant under the facts alleged herein. Assuming arguendo that the City of Oakdale Municipal Code §4-13 represents the duty alleged in this matter, this Court cannot conclude t