7
also indicated plaintiff waived her right to back rent and damages so that “a judgment for
possession may issue forthwith.” This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred because there were triable issues of fact
concerning whether her use of the premises was illegal.
Standard of Review
We review the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment de novo. (Price v. Wells Fargo
Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 474.) Summary judgment is properly granted when no triable
issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subd. (c), 1170.7.) Because a summary judgment denies the adverse
party a trial, it should be granted with caution. (Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Dept. of
Adoptions (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 859, 865.) Declarations of the moving party are strictly
construed, those of the opposing party are liberally construed, and doubts as to whether
summary judgment should be granted must be resolved in favor of the opposing party.
(Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 838.)
“In moving for summary judgment, a ‘plaintiff . . . has met’ his ‘burden of showing that
there is no defense to a cause of action if he ‘has proved each element of the cause of action
entitling’ him ‘to judgment on that cause of action. Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden,
the burden shifts to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts
exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant . . . may not rely upon the
mere allegations or denials’ of his ‘pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists
but, instead,’ must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists
as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)”
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) “[F]rom commencement to
conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is
no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Id. at
p. 850, fn. omitted.)
Analysis