Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Almir Mansilla (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Haas Automation, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability for a defective mini-mill that caused Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015.
On July 19, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Trial is set for April 30, 2020.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiff arguing there was no defect in the mini-mill and that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies.
OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Exhibit H,
Hearing Date
October 03, 2019
Type
Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Almir Mansilla (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Haas Automation, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability for a defective mini-mill that caused Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015.
On July 19, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Trial is set for April 30, 2020.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiff arguing there was no defect in the mini-mill and that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies.
OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Exhibit H,