Melissa Mandell-Brown filed a complaint against her employer Novo Nordisk, Inc. asserting 16 causes of action, including statutory claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under FEHA and the Labor Code and common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On May 18, 2022, defendants filed their motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication and argued that none of plaintiff’s causes of action survived summary judgment. The supporting separate statement included 161 undisputed facts. Defendants also submitted an attorney declaration authenticating 25 discovery exhibits and six witness declarations authenticating another 51 exhibits and containing detailed explanations of the non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for the elimination of plaintiff’s job position. The notice of motion set the hearing date for August 3, 2022, with a trial date then pending for October 4, 2022.

Two days before the hearing on the motion, on August 1, 2022, plaintiff, who had not filed an opposition to the motion, applied ex parte to continue the hearing. The trial court granted the application, setting the hearing for September 16, 2022, and continuing the trial date to November 8, 2022.

On September 14, 2022, plaintiff, who still had not filed her opposition, again applied ex parte to continue the hearing, and the trial court granted the application, setting the continued date for October 14, 2022, and continuing the trial until December 6, 2022. At the October 14, 2022, continued hearing on the motion, plaintiff did not file an opposition or separate statement, request a third continuance, or appear at the hearing. The trial court denied the third continuance. And it also issued a minute order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon no opposition, “plaintiff is conceding that the motion should be granted.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendant in the published case of Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al. – B326147 (March 2025)

The requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication are set forth in CCP section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), which provides that: “The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.”
Separate statements are “required, not discretionary, on the part of each party, and the statutory language makes the failure to comply with this requirement sufficient grounds to grant the motion.” (Whitehead v. Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 902.)

Further, the trial court here granted plaintiff two continuances to file her opposition, which required two continuances of the trial date. Notwithstanding the additional time the court afforded her to file opposition papers, plaintiff failed to submit points and authorities addressing defendants’ evidence as it related to the elements of her claims, any declarations presenting disputed factual issues, or a separate statement to assist the court in parsing which of the 161 facts asserted and supported by defendants’ evidence she disputed.

“Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (b)(3).”

Failure to Oppose Summary Judgment is Good Cause to Grant it