Batarse v. Service Employees International Union
209 Cal. App. 4th 820
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff sued SEIU for racial and gender discrimination, retaliation, negligent supervision, and wrongful termination in 2008.
- SEIU moved for summary judgment, asserting no discrimination/retaliation and a legitimate termination reason.
- Plaintiff’s opposition largely lacked a proper separate statement of disputed facts per CCP 437c(b)(3) and rule 3.1350.
- The court tentatively granted the motion, noting defective separate statement and lack of triable issues, and denied a continuance.
- Plaintiff sought a continuance to cure the separate statement and for further discovery; the court denied it.
- Judgment entered for SEIU; plaintiff appealed asserting abuse of discretion and prejudice from denial of cure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by denying continuance to cure the separate statement? | Kojababian-style cure was warranted; continuance would allow proper evidence and statements. | No cure existed; plaintiff failed to provide a proper separate statement or sufficient merit for delay. | No abuse; continuance not required given record and merits. |
| Did defective separate statement support summary judgment as a matter of law? | Defect is curable and material facts were disputed in opposition and declarations. | Defects prevented a proper summary judgment; plaintiff failed to show triable issues. | The court did not err in relying on defective statement to grant summary judgment. |
| Was there a triable issue of discrimination/retaliation after employer showed legitimate reason for termination? | Evidence showed pretext and discriminatory intent; statements suffice to create triable issue. | Plaintiff admitted misrepresentations; no substantial evidence of pretext or bias. | No triable issue; SEIU’s reasons were nondiscriminatory and supported. |
| Did the record show prejudice from denial of cure or continuance? | Continuation would have allowed proper framing; prejudice to plaintiff absent opportunity to cure. | No prejudice; record insufficient to defeat motion on merits. | No reversible prejudice; merits supported the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 4 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. App. 1992) (discretion in handling defective separate statements; curable vs. incurable defects)
- Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 133 Cal.App.4th 1197 (Cal. App. 2005) (reversal for failure to allow correction of deficient separate statement)
- Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. App. 2009) (continuance needed when lack of evidence prevents proper opposition)
- Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 170 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. App. 2009) (substantive defects in statements can justify denial of motion)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (three-stage burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (role of burden shifting in discrimination context)
- Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of California, 88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. App. 2000) (pretext standard and burden after legitimate reason shown)
- Wills v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 143 (Cal. App. 2011) (pretext and evidence standards for discrimination claims)
- Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 57 Cal.App.4th 1334 (Cal. App. 1997) (summary judgment framework and issues framing)