I am involved in a civil case where the opposing council is asking for a second motion for summary judgement on the same grounds. Is this common practice? What should be argued in regards to past litigation?
Personal Injury Lawyer
The grounds for summary judgment may not change from initial motion, but presumably the evidence has. If the motion is the same as before w/o new evidence discovered after the last motion, you may be able to attack the motion on the grounds that they are really making a motion for reconsideration of the prior motion, unless they are adding new information not known when the earlier motion was heard.
For thorough discussion of this issue see this CA Bar publication from 2006: http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=81663&categoryId=81622&month=11&year=2006. You should, of course, review later case law and verify current statutes.
I am licensed in California only and my answers on Avvo assume California law. Answers provided by me are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers must not be relied upon. Legal advice must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement signed by each of us. The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential and I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo or because I have answered or commented on a question. All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take appropriate action and because I do not provide legal advice in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult with an attorney for legal advice. Also, see Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference
Personal Injury Lawyer
The terminology might be different, but you could be describing what is often referred to as either a "motion to reargue" or a "motion to renew". Generally speaking, a motion to reargue is based on the same argument and evidence that was first presented, but the moving party is trying to show that the court misunderstood the evidence (fact) or misapplied the law, so as to come to an originally erroneous decision. It can not be based on new arguments or theories. A motion to renew is based on "new evidence" which the moving party must show was not only not in its possession at the time of the previous motion, but also there is a reasonable explanation as to why that movant could not have obtained that evidence before making the first motion. I defer to my CA colleagues to advise if the standards for such motions are different in CA. Your opposition would be to argue that the motion should be denied for failing to meet the procedural and/or substantive requirements as touched upon above. Good luck.
Assuming the first summary judgment was denied and there is a triable issue of fact then you may want to make a collateral estoppel/res judicata argument which is a legal doctrine which prevents relitigating the same claim or issue after a court has already made a ruling. I think more information is needed to fully answer your question.
This is my opinion and should not be construed as legal advise for your specific case as there are many more facts which you have not provided.