Sumner

Regents of the University of California v. Sumner

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 154·42 Cal. App. 4th 1209·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200·96 Daily Journal DAR 2091·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1268
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1996A068759California1,415 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

Appellants, Dr. Burnet Barnes Sumner and Dr. Christine Wood McGill, contend the trial court improperly granted a summary judgment which enforced a previous settlement between appellants and respondents, the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and Robert W. Surber, in a sexual harassment action brought by appellants. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The parties agreed at the time of the settlement that the details of their agreement would be confidential. They have filed under seal in this court their briefs and other documents concerning the settlement. Since this opinion is a public document, we will attempt to avoid disclosure of the confidential details of the settlement agreement in so far as possible. We granted authority, however, for the parties to discuss the settlement agreement in open court during oral argument, rejecting a motion to close oral argument to the public.

Appellants brought a prior action, Sumner v. Regents of University of California (Super. Ct. S.F. County, No. 941711), alleging sexual harassment and other torts against their employer, the Regents, and certain named individual defendants, including Surber. The…

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.