Barry v. Rodgers
| Citation | 141 Cal.App.2d 340,296 P.2d 898 |
| Parties | Milo BARRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willard K. RODGERS et al., Defendants, Sam Portelli and Lillian Portelli, Respondents. Civ. 21556. |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1956 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
Milo Barry, in pro. per.
Raymond R. Roberts, Van Nuys, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendants Sam Portelli and Lillian Portelli.
By his amended complaint plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Willard K. Rodgers, Sam Portelli, Lillian Portelli and others, for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. His asserted causes of action grow out of the fact that in December, 1953, defendant Rodgers swore to a criminal complaint charging plaintiff with perjury. Plaintiff was thereupon arrested, arraigned, and, upon a preliminary hearing, was held to answer in the superior court. The charges against him, however, were later dismissed. Plaintiff alleges that the Portellis had a part in this unhappy experience. The Portellis filed an amended answer denying plaintiff's allegations insofar as they related to them.
Thereafter the Portellis filed a notice of motion for summary judgment, supporting the same with their respective affidavits, which are identical except in one particular which will be later noted. These affidavits disclose that in 1951 Mr. and Mrs. Portelli rented a restaurant from Rocky Ybarra; that Milo Barry, plaintiff herein, prepared the lease; that in 1952 a civil action was instituted by Barry against defendant Rodgers and his wife, Rachael; that the matter before the court related to payment under a lease covering the identical restaurant premises. Mrs. Portelli's affidavit states that she was served with a subpoena requiring her to testify at the trial of said action; that she was called as a witness and testified as to the date that she and her husband took possession of the restaurant and as to the rent they paid. It does not appear from Mr. Portelli's affidavit that he was subpoenaed as a witness or testified.
Thereafter it appears from the affidavits of both Mr. and Mrs. Portelli that they were subpoenaed by the Los Angeles Police Department as witnesses on behalf of the People in a criminal proceeding entitled The People v. Milo Barry; that at said criminal trial they each testified as to the date they took possession of the restaurant and as to the rent they paid. Each of them denied ever having accused Barry of committing perjury; each denied having had any part whatsoever in causing a criminal complaint to be filed against him, or in causing his arrest and imprisonment.
Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition. It only stated conclusions and generalities, however. It failed to raise an issue as to any material fact. It was on this state of the record that the court granted the motion of the Portellis for summary judgment.
The purpose to be served by the summary judgment procedure is to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials. While it is not a substitute for a regular trial and does not authorize the trial of any bona fide issues of fact which the affidavits may reveal, it permits the court to pierce the allegations of the pleadings to ascertain whether a genuine cause of action in fact exists or whether the defense interposed is sham or feigned. Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562, 277 P.2d 464; Kelly v. Liddicoat, 35 Cal.App.2d 559, 561, 96 P.2d 186. If it appears from an examination of the affidavits that no triable issue of fact exists, and that the affidavits in support of the motion state facts which, if proved, would support a judgment in favor of the moving party, then summary judgment is proper. Coyne v. Krempels, 36 Cal.2d 257, 261, 223 P.2d 244. It is thus apparent that the propriety of granting or denying the motion deqends upon the sufficiency of the affidavits that have been filed. Kimber v. Jones, 122 Cal.App.2d 914, 918, 295 P.2d 922; Low v. Woodward Oil Co., 133 Cal.App.2d 116, 121, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney's At for Beach v. Superior Court
...Cal.App.2d 24, 28--29, 2 Cal.Rptr. 634; Wuelzer v. City of Oakland (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 337, 339, 338 P.2d 912; Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342, 296 P.2d 898; and Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562, 277 P.2d In Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1......
-
Swartzendruber v. City of San Diego
...449, 398 P.2d 785] ) ... the purpose of a summary judgment 'is to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials' (Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 )." (Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 972, 976-977, 243 Cal.Rptr. 277.) The moving party has the burd......
-
Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
...(1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 711, 715, 32 Cal.Rptr. 682; Hatch v. Bush (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 692, 707, 30 Cal.Rptr. 397; Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342, 296 P.2d 898.) In view of the determination that defendant failed to present any facts showing the existence of a factual issue ......
-
Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank
...P.2d 1121); however, the purpose of a summary judgment "is to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials" (Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342, 296 P.2d 898). If there are no triable issues, summary judgment is appropriate. We find the court was correct in finding that appe......