“Instead, the record shows that the trial court concluded that [Hooters’] evidence failed to meet its initial burden as the moving party and denied summary adjudication on that basis,” the appellate court said. “Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that [Hooters] failed to satisfy its initial burden as the moving party seeking summary adjudication.”
In particular, the Fourth District said Hooters waited too long to bring its argument that the workers’ complaint is inadequate, raising it at a hearing but not in any moving papers. And the trial court was correct in opting to ignore the new argument at that time, it said.
“By waiting until the hearing on summary adjudication to raise an entirely new ground for granting its motion, [Hooters] deprived the trial court of the benefit of written briefing on the issue, prevented plaintiffs from having a meaningful opportunity to consider the argument and prepare a response, and deprived plaintiffs of the opportunity to timely seek amendment of the complaint to cure any purported pleading defects,” the panel said.
