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

2,108 chars

28
successor in interest in a foreclosed property. Appellants assert that the trial court should
not have granted summary judgment in favor of respondents because triable issues of
material fact exist with regard to their causes of action for breach of the covenant of quiet
enjoyment and wrongful eviction.
1. Pleadings
       The pleadings " 'set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary
judgment.' (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621,
648 . . .; see generally Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666,
673 . . . ['pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment
proceeding'].) [Citations.]" (Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th
1244, 1250 (Conroy).) When an appellate court reviews a ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, it must identify the issues framed by the pleadings. (See Turner v.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1252.) "The materiality of a disputed fact is
measured by the pleadings [citations] . . . ." (Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal.,
supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1250; id. at p. 1254.) Moving defendants have "the burden on
summary judgment of negating only those ' "theories of liability as alleged in the
complaint" ' and [are] not obliged to ' " ' "refute liability on some theoretical possibility
not included in the pleadings," ' " ' simply because such a claim was raised in plaintiff's
declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (County of Santa Clara v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 332 . . . .)" (Id. at p. 1254.)
Declarations in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not a substitute for
amending the pleadings to raise additional theories of liability. (Ibid.) "[S]ummary
judgment cannot be denied on a ground not raised by the pleadings. [Citations.]"
(Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)
       In their second amended complaint, appellants generally alleged the following.
Appellants became tenants of a two-bedroom unit located at 1156 Stoneylake Court

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text