Mandell-Brown
Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Melissa Mandell-Brown appeals from the summary judgment entered on her FEHA 1 and other employment claims after she did not file an opposition to the underlying motion. She contends, among other things, that the trial court erroneously granted the motion without first deciding whether defendants 2 had met their initial burden on the motion. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c (section 437c), subdivision (b)(3) by granting the motion based on plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement, we affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Summary Judgment Motion
On April 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants 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.
FEHA is an acronym for the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900…