Emmerick

facts the opposing party contends are disputed.” An opposing party’s “[f]ailure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff Marc Emmerick—proceeding in pro. per.—appeals from February 3, 2023 judgments of the Kern County Superior Court entered after orders granting summary judgment in favor of (1) defendants County of Kern (County) and Kevin Giorgio; and (2) defendants Walter Ernst and Inyokern Community Services District (District). In compliance with section 437c, subdivision (b)(1), each set of defendants filed a separate statement. Emmerick, however, did not file oppositions, let alone separate statements pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (b)(3). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgments.

BACKGROUND

I. The operative complaint2

According to the complaint, sometime in October 2018, Emmerick was “making preparations to Access Water” at a “Sign Designated location” in Inyokern when he was

1 Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory citations refer to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 Emmerick filed the original complaint on June 19,…