Mother wants to know if Father is actually the biological father of Daughter, so gets a DNA test from Defendant. Defendant tells Mother that Father is not, in fact, the father.
Turns out, that's wrong. Father's in fact the father. As subsequent DNA tests definitively confirm.
So Mother (and Daughter) sue Defendant. You might think that's a pretty decent lawsuit.
Maybe it is. Though, of course, every lawsuit has its own complexities.
But in this one, one of the complexities is counsel for plaintiff, San Diego attorney Duane Admire. The Court of Appeal isn't particularly happy with the papers filed in this case. Here's what it says
"We set out the undisputed material facts as ascertained from the parties' moving and opposing papers and state other facts and draw inferences from them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Having said this, we are compelled to note the difficulty we have had identifying the evidence supporting plaintiffs' claimed disputes as to defendants' enumerated material facts pertaining to the section 47(b) privilege. Plaintiffs' opposing separate statements largely contain argumentative assertions in response to each listed fact, unsupported by the cited evidence. . . . To further complicate review, plaintiffs make numerous factual assertions in their briefs without record citation. Accordingly, our review of the facts is also hindered by their failure to provide citations to the record that comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C). We are entitled to disregard such unsupported factual assertions even on de novo review of a summary judgment."
The Court of Appeal likes good briefs. They won't always enable you to win. But they can definitely help you not lose.
Which plaintiffs do here. Lawsuit dismissed.