California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rohrbasser v. Lederer, 179 Cal.App.3d 290, 224 Cal.Rptr. 791 (Cal. App. 1986):
As previously noted, "[t]he burden of proof rests upon no one more heavily than upon a plaintiff seeking relief upon the ground of fraud...." (Estudillo v. Security Loan etc. Co., supra, 149 Cal. at p. 564, 87 P. 19.) Under such circumstances, it would be foolhardy for one to seek summary disposition of such an issue by motion, knowing that unless one requests the right to present oral testimony a denial of the motion would constitute a bar to an equitable action seeking the same relief. The more prudent course would be to seek such relief in an independent action where the restrictions of rule 323(a) do not apply, especially where the need of the opposing party's testimony is demanded by the facts of the case. Consequently, instead of resulting in the gainful use of judicial time, summary disposition of issues by motion would have been effectively eliminated.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.