 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinez v. Bank Of America National Trust & Savings Association8/1/2000
have been set no later than May 23, 1995. The Martinezes claim that by granting the summary judgment motion and denying a continuance, the trial court denied them their opportunity to discover why the Bank did not proceed in a timely way.
This argument is raised for the first time on appeal. Nothing in the complaint or in the opposition before the trial court refers to this basis for a continuance. No evidence was presented to the trial court concerning this contention. Plaintiff's attorney's declaration exclusively addresses the discovery dispute in requesting a continuance. Thus the opposition does not satisfy the showing necessary under Wachs v. Curry, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 623.
In reviewing a summary judgment, moreover, this court must consider only those facts before the trial court and must disregard any new allegations on appeal. Possible theories that were not presented to the trial court or fully developed below cannot create a triable issue on appeal. (Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 950, 962; Hollingshead v. Matsen (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 525, 542-543.) We find no error.
VI. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal awarded to defendant Bank of America.
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
We concur:
CROSKEY, Acting P.J.
SCHNEIDER, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|