Ramsay Highlander, Inc. v. Fresh Express

Filed 4/14/06 Ramsay Highlander, Inc. v. Fresh Express CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RAMSAY HIGHLANDER, INC., H028153

Cross-Complainant and Appellant, (Monterey County

Superior Court

v. No. M59560)

FRESH EXPRESS, INC., et al.

Cross-Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________________________/

Appellant Ramsay Highlander, Inc. (Ramsay) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondents Fresh Express, Inc. (Fresh Express) and Richard Brown after respondents' summary judgment motion was granted. Ramsay claims that (1) the superior court erred in granting the summary judgment motion because Fresh Express and Brown failed to meet their initial burden of production in support of their motion, (2) the superior court erred in excluding as hearsay a portion of a declaration filed by Ramsay in support of its opposition and (3) the superior court erred in denying Ramsay's new trial motion. We conclude that Fresh Express failed to satisfy its burden, and therefore the superior court erred in granting the summary judgment motion.

I. Factual Background

Fresh Express is a producer and distributor of fresh packaged salads. It does not build or sell harvesting equipment. Richard Brown is Fresh Express's director of research and development for its raw product group. In 1998, Fresh Express developed a method for use in the field to place a cored head of iceberg lettuce in a position so that the cored hole was facing down and a solution could be sprayed upward into the cored hole to clean it. Fresh Express filed a patent application on this â€