Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed judgments granting Novo Nordisk, Inc. and a co-defendant summary judgment against Melissa Mandell-Brown on employment-related claims. The court held that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), the trial court had discretion to grant the motion based on the plaintiff's failure to file an opposing separate statement, particularly given the complexity of the motion and multiple continuances. The opinion was modified on April 4, 2025, to replace “deny” with “grant” on page 8, with no change to the judgment.

Holdings

1. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), a trial court has discretion to grant a defense motion for summary judgment when the opposing party fails to submit the required separate statement.
2. When a plaintiff opposing a defense motion for summary judgment fails to file a separate statement and the moving papers are not facially deficient, the trial court may grant the motion without first undertaking a detailed prima facie analysis of the supporting evidence as to each element of each claim.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants' motion after plaintiff failed to oppose it, failed to file the required separate statement, failed to appear, and failed to seek further relief after receiving two continuances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to file the separate statement required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3).
2. Whether the trial court was required to conduct a detailed prima facie review of defendants' supporting evidence and determine whether defendants met their initial burden before granting summary judgment in the absence of an opposing separate statement.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under the circumstances, including the complexity of the motion and plaintiff's failure to oppose it after receiving two continuances.

Disposition

affirmed