Kalivas

Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 927·49 Cal. App. 4th 1152·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200·96 Daily Journal DAR 12061·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7347
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1996B083667California3,935 words

Opinion

Opinion

In this case, the trial judge promulgated a "courtroom local rule" that applied solely to cases in that judge's courtroom. This courtroom local rule, however, conflicted with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Government Code, was procedurally confusing, and led appellant's counsel to believe the court had taken a summary judgment motion off calendar. Counsel, therefore, filed no opposition or separate statement, and did not appear at the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted summary judgment, in part, based on these omissions, and denied a motion for reconsideration. We find counsel's procedural omissions were excusable and resulted from an impermissible courtroom local rule. Accordingly, we reverse.

Elene Kalivas appeals from the summary judgment entered against her and in favor of defendant Barry Controls Corporation (Barry) in Kalivas's action for gender discrimination and discrimination on account of pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, §§ 12940, 12945), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and from an order after judgment…

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.