- Exposes missing evidence the creditor must have—but often doesn’t
- Supports a §437c(h) continuance, allowing the court to deny or defer MSJ because facts essential to opposition are unavailable
For lawyers and self-represented litigants alike, this is often the single most effective tactic.
The Bigger Picture: Creditors Haven’t Adjusted—Yet
High-volume creditor litigation relies on speed, repetition, and assumption of non-opposition. AB 2049 disrupts that model. Courts now expect:
- Clean evidentiary records
- Strict procedural compliance
- Real proof—not boilerplate
Consumers who understand this shift can force cases into trial posture, settlement, or dismissal—often without paying the claimed debt.
California’s updated summary judgment framework is not cosmetic. It is structural.
For the first time in two decades, creditors face meaningful resistance—not from policy, but from procedure. And in a legal system where the moving party bears the burden, rushed filings are no longer just aggressive—they’re risky.
For consumers already stretched thin, this matters. For lenders still litigating like it’s 2015, it’s a wake-up call.
