Denton v. City and County of San Francisco, A147384

Background

Denton sued the City and supervisor John Doyle alleging discrimination, retaliation, defamation and related claims; summary judgment by defendants was pending for September 25, 2015.
Parties mediated Sept. 4 and negotiated afterward; by Sept. 11 mediator and defense counsel believed a $250,000 conditional settlement had been agreed and Denton’s counsel filed a notice of conditional settlement Sept. 14.
Denton fired his attorney Letizia on Sept. 16, told defense counsel he had terminated her and twice emailed that he had not rejected the settlement; Letizia delayed filing the substitution until Sept. 21.
Defense counsel applied ex parte Sept. 21 to vacate the notice of settlement and to keep the summary judgment hearing date; the court granted the ex parte relief without Denton having seen the papers and found Denton had not agreed to the settlement.
On Sept. 25 Denton appeared pro se, requested a continuance to obtain counsel and to oppose the summary judgment (claiming he still intended to settle or needed time to oppose), the court denied the continuance and granted summary judgment as unopposed. Denton’s new trial motion was later denied.
The Court of Appeal reversed: the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and denying the new trial because Denton was deprived of a fair opportunity to oppose the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Denton’s oral request to continue the summary judgment hearing	Denton argued the sudden change (fired counsel, disputed status of settlement) left him without counsel or time to oppose and justified continuance	Defendants argued no settlement existed; Denton failed to file a written continuance request or opposition and had no basis to expect the hearing would be vacated	Court reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion—good cause shown by unanticipated change in case status and unfairness of denying a fair opportunity to oppose
Whether granting summary judgment as unopposed was permissible without determining movant met initial burden	Denton argued court must independently determine defendant met its initial MSJ burden before granting judgment despite lack of opposition	Defendants relied on procedural default: Denton did not file opposition, so granting was appropriate	Court held summary judgment may not be granted solely on lack of opposition without showing movant met its burden; record gave no sign court reviewed movant’s showing
Whether ex parte relief to vacate the notice of settlement (and keep hearing date) was proper given facts and notice	Denton contended defense counsel misrepresented his position and the ex parte process deprived him of chance to oppose	Defendants argued they reasonably believed settlement was withdrawn and sought prompt relief to proceed	Court did not decide ex parte propriety (no need); analysis of outcome showed ex parte result contributed to deprivation of fair hearing and supported reversal of later orders
Whether denial of new trial was proper after the proceedings and alleged irregularities	Denton argued irregularity, surprise, and legal error warranted new trial	Defendants argued lack of diligence and that no settlement existed; procedural default justified denial	Court reversed denial of new trial as an abuse of discretion given the prejudice and unfairness of the prior rulings

Key Cases Cited

Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff’s Dept., 8 Cal.App.5th 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (continuance standards; deny continuance results in manifest injustice may require reversal)
Lerma v. County of Orange, 120 Cal.App.4th 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (good-cause standard for continuance of summary judgment)
People v. Jacobs, 156 Cal.App.4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard and limits on judicial discretion)
Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 4 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (terminating sanctions and refusing continuance to oppose MSJ constituted abuse of discretion)
Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 79 Cal.App.4th 1081 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (court must ensure movant met initial summary judgment burden even if opposition absent)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (standard of review for new trial motions)
Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 (Cal. 1983) (trial court discretion subject to legal limits; discretion must conform to law)