Andersen

Andersen v. Pacific Bell

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 806·204 Cal. App. 3d 277·251 Cal. Rptr. 66
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1988Docket Nos. H002925, H003159California2,777 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brauer, J.

Plaintiffs, who are customer service representatives for defendant Pacific Bell, sued for arbitrary discrimination under Public Utilities Code section 453, subdivision (a), and constructive wrongful termination. The trial court granted Pacific Bell’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment, but reverse the order denying statutory costs to Pacific Bell.

Standard of Review

The Supreme Court has summarized “the well-established rules governing summary judgment procedure” as follows: “ ‘ “The matter to be determined by the trial court in considering such a motion is whether the defendant. . . has presented any facts which give rise to a triable issue. The court may not pass upon the issue itself. Summary judgment is proper only if the affidavits in support of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor and his opponent does not by affidavit show such facts as may be deemed by the judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue. The aim of the procedure is to discover, through the media of affidavits, whether the parties possess evidence requiring the weighing procedures of a trial. In examining the sufficiency of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.