McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RB

Accordingly, the Court must first decide whether the trial COUlt
abused its discretion in determining that Dr. Rifkin's opinions were
inadmissible. The COUlt must then analyze the summary judgment on the
basis of whatever evidence remains.
Although the record reveals that the trial court issued multiple orders
reflecting different grounds for granting summary judgment, it is immaterial
what grounds the trial COUlt actually relied upon, because a reviewing COUlt
"must affirm so long as any ofthe grounds urged by [the moving patty],
either here or in the trial court, entitles it to summary judgment." (Western
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Yamamoto (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1481~
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Tab Transportation, Inc. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 389,
399, fn. 4 ["[A] ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be
disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason. Ifright upon
any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless
of the considerations which may have moved the trial COUlt to its
conclusion"], quoting Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325,
329.) This principle applies with equal force to the situation hereevidentiary
rulings govemed by the abuse-of-discretion standard. (In re
Marriage ofBurgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 [discretionary custody ruling
affirmed if correct on any ground]; Philip Chang & Sons Associates v. La
Casa Novato (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 159, 173 [exclusion of evidence
affirmed even if objection granted was incorrect because correct objection
existed].)
9