THREAD: Here are the specific points the estate argues with regard to the recent passing of AB 218. These will be the center points to the appellate decision and upcoming oral arguments.
These are the estate's responses to the court's specific questions following AB 218 passing:
These are the estate's responses to the court's specific questions following AB 218 passing:
A. Applicability.
The estate concedes AB would allow late filing of claims if appeals aren't concluded by Jan. 1. This would eliminate partial—but not all—focus of appeal; with regard to 340.1(b)(2).
Estate reiterates that it would challenge applicability later as law evolves.
The estate concedes AB would allow late filing of claims if appeals aren't concluded by Jan. 1. This would eliminate partial—but not all—focus of appeal; with regard to 340.1(b)(2).
Estate reiterates that it would challenge applicability later as law evolves.
B. Other Issues (1)
Estate argues appellate court must affirm case dismissal if it is a proper based on any other grounds stated in demurrer. This includes at least 4/6 other causes JS can't prove:
- Negligent Supervision
- Negligent Hiring
- Failure to Warn
- Breach of Duty
Estate argues appellate court must affirm case dismissal if it is a proper based on any other grounds stated in demurrer. This includes at least 4/6 other causes JS can't prove:
- Negligent Supervision
- Negligent Hiring
- Failure to Warn
- Breach of Duty
B. Other Issues (2)
Emphasis is placed on fact that appellate court can uphold trial ruling based on any other noted findings in the demurrer, whether or not the trial court intended the other (non time-related) findings to support the demurrer or acted upon them specifically.
Emphasis is placed on fact that appellate court can uphold trial ruling based on any other noted findings in the demurrer, whether or not the trial court intended the other (non time-related) findings to support the demurrer or acted upon them specifically.
C (1). Both Cases Related
Estate concedes that unlike JS, WR's demurrer is based only on statute of limitations (likely reversed via AP 218).
But since they both argue same causes of action, court should wait to rule on WR's until after JS' is decided, based on arguments above.
Estate concedes that unlike JS, WR's demurrer is based only on statute of limitations (likely reversed via AP 218).
But since they both argue same causes of action, court should wait to rule on WR's until after JS' is decided, based on arguments above.
C (2). WR - Time Needed for New Discovery
Wade's case was litigated 4.5 years w/ less than 5 mo. left to try when summary judgment came. If remanded, estate needs time for new discovery relating to Wade's PR tour & LN etc. Appellate court should decide time options if remanded.
Wade's case was litigated 4.5 years w/ less than 5 mo. left to try when summary judgment came. If remanded, estate needs time for new discovery relating to Wade's PR tour & LN etc. Appellate court should decide time options if remanded.
