Edson

MEMORANDUM **

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, 1 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, affirming summary judgment only where no genuine issues of material fact exist.

We first address whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to ValleyCare without notice to Ed-son as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ValleyCare simply requested in its opposition brief to Edson’s motion that the court grant it summary judgment. A district court may sua sponte grant summary judgment when the “losing party has had a ‘full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the motion.’ ”

Edson sought summary judgment on the issue of liability and knew that ValleyCare requested summary judgment in its opposition brief. In his reply brief he stated: “For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff Darren Edson respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for summary adjudication and deny the purported counter-motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.” Thus, Edson had full knowledge of the issues before the court and the exercise of the summary judgment procedure sua sponte was not error.

We find no error…