Q: Pros and cons of motion for summary judgement

A: Under California law, here are some key pros and cons of a plaintiff filing a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case focused on hospice fraud:

Pros:

1. Expedited resolution: If successful, a summary judgment motion can resolve the case quickly without the need for a lengthy and costly trial. This is beneficial for the plaintiff who has a strong case.

2. Reduced costs: By avoiding trial, the plaintiff can save on legal fees and other expenses associated with a prolonged court battle.

3. Stronger bargaining position: If the motion is likely to succeed, it puts pressure on the defendant to settle the case on terms more favorable to the plaintiff.

4. Judicial efficiency: Summary judgment motions help courts manage their caseload by filtering out cases that don't require a full trial.

Cons:

1. High burden of proof: The plaintiff must show there are no disputed material facts and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a complex hospice fraud case, this can be challenging.

2. Risk of revealing strategy: The motion requires detailed evidence and arguments, potentially exposing the plaintiff's case strategy to the defendant prematurely.

3. Possibility of denial: If the motion is denied, it may give the defendant a psychological advantage and embolden them to fight harder at trial.

4. Appellate risk: If summary judgment is granted but later overturned on appeal, it could significantly prolong the case and increase costs.

5. Reduced damages: Even if summary judgment is granted on liability, a trial may still be needed to determine damages, somewhat limiting the benefits.

Overall, the decision to seek summary judgment depends on the strength of the plaintiff's case, their risk tolerance, and overall litigation strategy in consultation with an experienced malpractice attorney familiar with California hospice fraud cases.