Aerojet-General Corp. v. Superior Court, AEROJET-GENERAL

• Decision Date: 18 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. A042785,AEROJET-GENERAL,A042785
• Citation: 209 Cal.App.3d 973,258 Cal.Rptr. 684
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Previously published at 209 Cal.App.3d 973 209 Cal.App.3d 973, 211 Cal.App.3d 216 CORP., et al., Petitioners, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, CHESHIRE AND COMPANIES, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 684

258 Cal.Rptr. 684

Previously published at 209 Cal.App.3d 973

209 Cal.App.3d 973, 211 Cal.App.3d 216

AEROJET-GENERAL CORP., et al., Petitioners, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, CHESHIRE AND COMPANIES, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. A042785.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

May 18, 1989.

Review Denied Aug. 10, 1989.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

BY THE COURT:

Real parties in interest petition for rehearing contending we have omitted or misstated material facts in our opinion filed April 19, 1989, 211 Cal.App.3d 216, 257 Cal.Rptr. 621. We have reviewed the allegations of the petition and have found them without merit. We deny the petition for rehearing and add the following comments.

There has been considerable confusion in this case over the role played by the extrinsic evidence in the trial court. Although some extrinsic evidence was presented below, it was entirely stricken on cross-motions to strike and the trial court resolved the question as a matter of law. When this was drawn to real parties' attention at oral argument, they responded only that one piece of extrinsic evidence, a letter allegedly denying a previous insurance claim, was not stricken. Real parties, however, were mistaken, and in footnote three of our opinion we accurately discuss the role and the fate of extrinsic evidence in this case. In the petition for rehearing real parties argue that "the trial court's ruling on Aerojet's objections and motion to strike was limited to striking the evidence in real parties' reply. [p] At no point in the record is there a ruling by the trial court striking the evidence submitted with the original motion."

Aside from the fact that the current contention is broader than real parties' response at oral argument, we cannot agree with real parties' interpretation of the record. Real parties accompanied their motion for summary adjudication with numerous items of purported extrinsic evidence. These items were not cited as supportive evidence of either of the two material facts set forth in real parties' Separate Statement of Material Facts. Indeed, real parties took pains to note again and again that the motion posed only a legal question of insurance contract interpretation; for instance, real parties stated that the motion "presents a legal issue that depends only on the plain meaning of the insurance policies." The motion suggested the factual matters were not necessary to resolve the legal issue, and were presented only for "context." In its opposition to the summary judgment motion, Aerojet attached numerous items of purported extrinsic evidence. In their reply brief, real parties presented additional evidentiary items.

Aerojet filed a motion to strike the purported evidence submitted in support of both the motion for summary adjudication and the reply brief. Aerojet's motion was made "on the ground that the material sought to be stricken does not relate to the issues or to the allegedly undisputed facts set forth in [real parties'] Separate Statement [of Material Facts], and, in the case of evidentiary materials, is not listed in said Separate Statement as supporting evidence, all in violation of the applicable statute and Rules of Court." The motion to strike was not limited to...