The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside) in RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) issued a significant published decision. The California Court of Appeal addressed a previously unsettled question: can a co-defendant oppose another defendant’s motion for summary judgment when the plaintiff does not oppose it and no cross-claims exist between the defendants? The Court answered yes, holding that a party may oppose a motion for summary judgment if it is adverse to the moving party—even in the absence of cross-claims.
The case arose from a construction site collapse that resulted in injury for one worker and the death of another. The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including the structural engineer and the steel framing contractor. The plaintiffs later declined to oppose the engineer’s summary judgment motion. However, the steel framing contractor and another defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the engineer’s negligent design contributed to the collapse. The trial court refused to consider their opposition, ruling that the two defendants lacked standing without a cross-claim against the structural engineer, and granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding this refusal was error.
Relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the Court emphasized that “any adverse party” may oppose a summary judgment motion—not just plaintiffs or cross-complainants. The statute does not limit opposition rights to the plaintiff. The Court rejected the idea that adverse interests arise only from cross-claims. Instead, it held that adverse interests exist when the parties’ positions on liability are in conflict. This includes situations where: (1) co-defendants could shift blame to each other for the plaintiff’s injuries; (2) a party’s exoneration would prejudice another party’s defense; and (3) parties have conflicting theories of the case (even without contractual or procedural cross-claims).
This decision clarifies an important procedural point in California litigation and highlights the need for trial lawyers to protect their client’s interests proactively in multi-defendant cases. Defense counsel in multi-defendant cases in California state courts should be vigilant when another defendant moves for summary judgment. If the moving party’s exoneration could shift liability onto your client, file an opposition—even without a cross-claim.
This document is intended to provide you with information about trending law related developments and news. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact the authors. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.