5
review the trial court’s ruling de novo. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 860.) We consider the
evidence presented by the parties in connection with the motion and all the uncontradicted
inferences the evidence reasonably supports. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465,
476.) The reviewing court ‘“examine[s] the facts presented to the trial court and determine[s]
their effect as a matter of law.’ [Citation.] [It] review[s] the entire record, ‘considering all the
evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have
been made and sustained.’ [Citation.] Evidence presented in opposition to summary judgment
is liberally construed, with any doubts about the evidence resolved in favor of the party
opposing the motion. [Citation.]’” (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618 (Regents).) The reviewing court “must draw from the evidence all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”
(Caliber Paving Co., Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty & Management, Inc. (2020) 54
Cal.App.5th 175, 190 (Caliber Paving).) We affirm summary judgment where the moving
party demonstrates that no triable issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. (§ 437c, subd. (c).)
Analysis
Foster contends the court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
because his opposition to the motion created triable issues of material fact. He acknowledges
he failed to assert the affirmative defenses discussed in the opposition papers in his answer to
the complaint, but he insists they were “properly raised” in the opposition and at the hearing of
the motion and, therefore, plaintiff was not prejudiced.
Effect of Foster’s general denial
Generally, the pleadings determine the relevant issues on a summary judgment motion,
and the motion may not be granted or denied on issues not raised by the pleadings. (See
Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663 [“Summary judgment
cannot be granted on a ground not raised by the pleadings”]; FPI Development, Inc. v.
Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383 [“a defect in the answer may entitle the