legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Huhs v. NRG El Segundo Operations
In this appeal, plaintiff Jeffrey Huhs (plaintiff) challenges the summary judgment granted to defendants NRG El Segundo Operations, Inc. (El Segundo), NRG Energy, Inc. (Energy), NRG Western Affiliate Services, Inc. (Western Affiliate Services, collectively NRG), Audun Aaberg (Aaberg), Robert Rea (Rea), and Keith Goodner (Goodner, and collectively with the corporate defendants, defendants). Additionally, plaintiff challenges the trial courts denial of his request for a continuance on the hearing of the summary judgment motions.
Plaintiff also challenges the trial courts denial of his request for reconsideration, denial of his request to treat the motion for reconsideration as a motion for new trial after the court entered a judgment while the motion for reconsideration was pending, and imposition of sanctions in connection with the denial of his request for reconsideration. Plaintiff further challenges the denial his motion for new trial which was denied by operation of law when the court set a hearing on the motion past the statutory time on which the court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Lastly, plaintiff challenges the courts award of attorneys fees to defendants Rea and Goodner.
Regarding plaintiffs challenge to the judgment itself, Court find that the papers submitted by the parties in support of, and in opposition to, the various summary judgment motions filed by defendants support the trial courts decision that there are no triable issues of material fact on the first six of plaintiffs seven causes of action. However, the trial courts minute order on the summary judgment motions did not address plaintiffs seventh causes of action and thus it remains outstanding. Summary judgment, therefore, should not have been ordered. Nevertheless, because the defendants respective motions requested summary adjudication of issues as an alternative to summary judgment, the court should have entered an order granting adjudication in favor of the defendants on the first six causes of action. We will remand the matter with directions to the trial court to consider and rule upon the defendants motion with respect to the seventh cause of action and, depending on that ruling, to conduct such further proceedings as may be appropriate.
There was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiffs request for a continuance of the hearing on the summary judgment motions. However the denial of his motion for reconsideration and the award of sanctions cannot stand given that the court had no jurisdiction to even consider the motion because of the intervening judgment. As for plaintiffs challenge to the denial by operation of law of his motion for new trial, that result occurred because he did not monitor the resetting of the hearing on the motion. Lastly, we find no cause to reverse the courts award of attorneys fees to defendants Rea and Goodner. Court remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the request for summary adjudication of issues on the seventh cause of action.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale