The court of appeals ruled that the trial court’s decision was erroneous and held that more information needed to be disclosed. Now, the trial court needs to have further proceedings to determine how much more disclosure is required.
The case originates from a lawsuit filed against petitioners, who own and operate Bermuda Dunes Airport, by RPI’s owners of adjacent land, who seek to impose an easement across the airport property. The trial was originally set for May 2, 2025. On November 14, 2024, petitioners reserved an April 1, 2025, hearing date for their MSJ through the Riverside Court Reservation System. The motion was filed and served on RPI’s via email on January 10, 2025, 81 days before the hearing date and more than 30 days before trial, pursuant to statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).)
The goal of California’s statutory scheme governing presentation of evidence in the case-in-chief “is to avoid surprise at trial. (Staub v. Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1444, 1447, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 (Staub); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781, 149 Cal.Rptr. 499 (Deyo) [“discovery laws were designed to prevent trial by ambush”].)
Surprise at trial is unfair. It also is inefficient.” (emphasis in original.)
Where the evidence shows that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of an injury, comparative negligence need not be submitted to the jury.
A proponent of expert testimony must always establish the admissibility criteria of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no presumption in favor of admission, and the reliability test may also be applied to an expert’s reasoning process.