Date Posted: January 20, 2010 by SF_JD
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to offer admissible evidence that defendant manufactured or distributed the gate that caused the injury to minor plaintiff. These points and authorities argue that there is a disputed issue of fact regarding whether defendant's product caused the injury since the store that purportedly sold the product confirmed in deposition that it is, that defendant's pmk had no foundation to say that it was not defendant's product, and there is otherwise untrustworthy evidence to dispute that it was defendant's product. Alternatively, plaintiff asks for a 437c(h) extension to conduct additional discovery.