In Kulesa v. Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, the moving party's affidavits are not strictly construed. They are not construed at all. The court does not decide whether the undisputed facts entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law. No consideration of the merits takes place. Granting the motion on purely procedural grounds amounts to a windfall for the moving party." (Security Pacific, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 97.) "The court's discretion under section 437c, subdivision (b) does not preempt its duty under subdivision (c) to consider all the submitted papers when determining whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment." (Kulesa, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 111.) The appellate court held the trial court had erroneously granted summary judgment for defendants in a malpractice action on the grounds that their continued representation of the plaintiffs had not tolled the legal malpractice statute of limitations. In so doing, the court recognized the separate statement opposing summary judgment was inadequate, but held the plaintiffs' failure to raise the tolling argument in their separate statement did not justify summary judgment where the tolling matter was emphatically identified in their very brief points and authorities, supported with a relevant evidentiary exhibit and where reply papers filed by the defendants did not dispute the plaintiff's factual evidence. (Id. at pp. 107-108, 113-114.) "All the papers submitted showed the attorneys' statute of limitations defense was without merit as a matter of law. In light of that showing, the court simply had no discretion to grant the summary judgment under the "may" provision of section 437c, subdivision (b) for a deficient separate statement." (Id. at p. 114.) "When the most cursory review of all the papers shows the motion to be utterly without factual or legal merit, the court has no discretion to grant the summary judgment." (Id. at p. 113.)