Background - Denton, an employee of the City and County of San Francisco, sued his employer and supervisor; a defendants' summary judgment motion was pending with hearing continued to September 25, 2015. - After mediation the parties negotiated a $250,000 conditional settlement; Denton’s counsel (Letizia) filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement on September 14. - Denton discharged Letizia on September 16, sent emails to defense counsel disavowing further contact by Letizia but twice stating he had not rejected the settlement agreement. - Defendants filed an ex parte application to vacate the Notice of Settlement and to keep the summary judgment hearing date; Berkowitz’s declaration asserted Denton had withdrawn from the settlement. - The court granted the ex parte application; on September 25 Denton appeared in propria persona, asked for a continuance to obtain counsel and/or oppose the summary judgment, but the court denied the continuance and granted summary judgment as unopposed. - Denton moved for a new trial asserting irregularity, surprise, insufficiency of evidence, and legal error; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed the denial of the continuance and the denial of the new trial, and reversed the summary judgment. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing Denton’s oral request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing | Denton argued he was surprised by the ex parte ruling, lacked counsel and time to oppose the motion, and showed good cause for a continuance | Defendants argued no settlement existed and Denton failed to file a written continuance request or opposition and thus was not diligent | Court held denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion given the unanticipated change in case status and manifest injustice of deciding the motion without Denton’s meaningful opportunity to oppose | | Whether summary judgment could be granted solely because the motion was unopposed without the court first determining defendant met its initial burden | Denton argued the court must independently assess whether defendants met their initial burden before granting an unopposed motion | Defendants relied on Denton’s failure to file opposition and procedural default to justify granting judgment | Court held a court may not grant summary judgment solely for lack of opposition without first determining the movant met its burden; record showed court gave no indication it reviewed merits | | Whether the trial court erred in granting ex parte relief to vacate the Notice of Settlement without adequate showing of urgency or accurate factual basis | Denton argued defense counsel mischaracterized his position and ex parte relief deprived him of opportunity to be heard | Defendants argued they reasonably believed settlement was withdrawn and ex parte relief was proper to protect scheduling | Appellate opinion did not decide this issue (reversal was based on continuance/new trial), but noted problems with defense counsel’s position and process surrounding the ex parte application | | Whether denial of new trial was an abuse of discretion given alleged irregularity and surprise | Denton argued irregularity (attorney conduct and ex parte ruling) and surprise warranted new trial | Defendants argued Denton’s procedural failures and that no settlement existed negated surprise | Court held denial of new trial was an abuse of discretion because denial of the continuance produced manifest injustice and surprise; reversal required new proceedings | ### Key Cases Cited Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept., 8 Cal.App.5th 759 (discussing good-cause standard for continuances and abuse-of-discretion review) Lerma v. County of Orange, 120 Cal.App.4th 709 (continuance standards for summary judgment hearings) People v. Jacobs, 156 Cal.App.4th 728 (abuse of discretion principles and limits on trial court discretion) Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 4 Cal.App.4th 89 (denial of continuance and granting judgment as sanction is disfavored; terminating sanctions require willfulness or history) Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 79 Cal.App.4th 1081 (court must determine whether movant met initial burden before granting unopposed summary judgment) Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (standard of review for new-trial motions) * Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 (limits on trial court discretion; discretion subject to legal principles)