Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,113 chars

27
their burden of persuasion and/or production depends on which would bear what burden
of proof at trial." (Id. at p. 851.) Thus, where a plaintiff would bear the burden of proof
by a preponderance of evidence at trial, a defendant moving for summary judgment
"must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact not to find any
underlying material fact more likely than not-otherwise, he would not be entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, but would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact."
(Ibid., fn. omitted.)
"[E]ven though the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences
against the defendants' as though it were sitting as the trier of fact, it must nevertheless
determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of
fact." (Id. at p. 856.) In ruling on the motion, the court must view the evidence and
inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Id. at p. 843.)
A motion for summary judgment must be granted "if all the papers submitted
show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) "In
determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact
the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except that to which
objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably
deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment may not be granted by the court
based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, if contradicted by other
inferences or evidence, which raise a triable issue as to any material fact." (Ibid.)
B. State Law Claims
As discussed, we conclude that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the
PTFA. Respondents have not identified any legal bar precluding a bona fide tenant
whose bona fide tenancy for a term survives foreclosure by operation of the PTFA from
seeking state law remedies for violations of the tenant's rights against an immediate

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text