Financial Pacific Ins. Co. v. W. Coast Fire Prot. Systems
Filed 4/25/06 Financial Pacific Ins. Co. v. W. Coast Fire Prot. Systems CA3
(use .pdf version or print layout in Word to see graphic, p. 6)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST COAST FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CO., Defendant and Respondent. | C048772
(Super. Ct. No. 03AS00779)
|
Story Continued from Part II…………
The cases the Centennial court cited for this latter proposition include cases in which the trial court was explicitly empowered by statute to exercise its discretion in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment. There are two obvious situations where this applies. First, under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), the trial court may exercise its discretion in determining whether to grant a continuance for additional discovery. (Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 127-129.) Second, under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (e), the court may exercise its discretion to deny a motion where the only proof of a material fact offered in support of the motion is an affidavit of the sole witness to that fact, or where the material fact is a person's mental state and the sole evidence of that mental state is that person's declaration. (Overland Plumbing, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 476, 483-484.) â€
