Carnes v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 07 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. C045867.,C045867. |
Citation | 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 915,126 Cal.App.4th 688 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Linda CARNES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Placer County, Defendant and Respondent. |
George F. Allen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant and Nancy J. Sheehan, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent.
After her probationary employment was terminated allegedly for the discourteous treatment of a coemployee and for insubordination to her supervisor, plaintiff Linda Carnes sued her employer, the Superior Court of Placer County (hereafter PCSC), for disability discrimination, harassment on account of disability, failure to reasonably accommodate her disabilities, and retaliation. From a summary judgment in favor of PCSC, Carnes appeals, contending there were triable issues of material fact. We agree, but only with respect to Carnes's causes of action for harassment and retaliation. Accordingly, in the unpublished portion of the opinion, we will reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to vacate its order granting summary judgment and enter a new order granting summary adjudication of Carnes's causes of action for discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate her disabilities in favor of PCSC, but denying summary adjudication of Carnes's causes of action for harassment and retaliation.
PCSC's summary judgment motion came on for hearing before a visiting judge on October 10, 2003. The judge did not make a tentative ruling before the hearing, and at the outset of the hearing admitted he had only "sort of scanned" the papers that had been filed but would "read every word before I make any rulings." At the end of the hearing, the judge took the matter under submission.
Two weeks later, the judge issued his written ruling, which read in its entirety: PCSC prepared a 14-page proposed order that included rulings on both parties' evidentiary objections, on which the judge had never expressed an opinion. Carnes objected to the proposed order on the ground that it did "not comply" with subdivision (g) of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.2 Notwithstanding Carnes's objection, the judge signed and filed the order, and the accompanying judgment of dismissal.3
Carnes contends it was improper for the judge to sign, "without alteration, a 14 page Order prepared by the attorney defending the Superior Court in the lawsuit against that Court," when the judge's own ruling on the motion "provided not even a hint of the basis for its ruling." According to Carnes, the judge "completely abdicated his responsibility to provide an explanation of why he was denying [her] a trial." (Italics omitted.)
PCSC contends the judge's actions were consistent with the practice sanctioned almost 20 years ago in Tera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 530, 215 Cal.Rptr. 923. There, the appellate court found fault in an order denying two summary judgment motions because the order "fail[ed] to indicate whether any issues raised by the motions [we]re without substantial controversy" and "it completely fail[ed] to detail the conflicting evidence regarding each triable issue of fact," as required by the summary judgment statute. (Id. at p. 532, 215 Cal. Rptr. 923.) In ordering the trial judge to enter an order that complied with the statute, the appellate court noted: (Ibid.; see also Young v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 28, 32, 224 Cal.Rptr. 405.)
Although we agree that Tera Pharmaceuticals approves (appropriately) of shifting to counsel the burden of preparing a formal order on a motion for summary judgment, we do not read that case as sanctioning, nor do we sanction, the total abdication of judicial responsibility that occurred here: to wit, granting a summary judgment motion without any specification of the reasons for doing so, then directing counsel for the prevailing party to prepare an order "includ[ing] and [sic] all findings necessary to support th[e] order," without telling the prevailing party what any of those "findings" should be.
The impropriety of the judge's action in this case is highlighted by the fact that the judge granted the motion for summary judgment without having made any rulings on the parties' evidentiary objections, even though the parties requested such rulings at the hearing. Thus, at the time the judge granted the motion and told PCSC's counsel to prepare the order granting the motion, it would have been impossible for counsel to determine what evidence the judge found admissible and what evidence the judge found inadmissible in granting the motion. The judge's determination of what evidence was admissible and what was inadmissible became apparent only later, after the judge signed the order PCSC's counsel had prepared containing rulings on the evidentiary objections—rulings which PCSC's counsel apparently had come up with on their own, without any input from the judge.4
Certainly it is not improper for a judge to adopt as his or her own the reasoning a defendant proposes for granting a motion for summary judgment, provided that reasoning is sound and the judge critically evaluates the reasoning before adopting it. Where, as here, however, a judge simply grants the motion, then asks the prevailing party to provide the court with the reasoning that will support that result, confidence in the court's integrity is seriously and legitimately undermined.
Notwithstanding our disapproval of the process by which the judge made his order in this case, that process does not compel reversing the judgment. Contrary to Carnes's argument, the judge did not fail to comply with subdivision (g) of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. In relevant part, that statute provides:
By signing the order PCSC's counsel prepared, the judge adopted that order as his own, and thus that order is the order required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (g), which states the court's "reasons for its determination." Carnes points to nothing in the record suggesting the judge adopted the proposed order without any critical analysis whatsoever. Thus, we must presume the judge reviewed the order and determined that the reasons expressed therein for granting the motion were sound.
In any event, and more importantly, because our review of the merits of the motion is de novo, "[i]n practical effect, we assume the role of a trial court and apply the same rules and standards that govern a trial court's determination of a motion for summary judgment." (Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1258, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 813.) "Regardless of how the trial court reached its decision, it falls to us to examine the record de novo and independently determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nygård, Inc. v. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Iltalehti, B192639 (Cal. App. 6/21/2007)
...this Division. (See, e.g., Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444; but see Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694 [recognizing split of authority on standard of review of evidentiary rulings in summary-judgment context]; City of Sou......
-
Collin v. Calportland Co.
...judgment or summary adjudication are not binding on us because we review its ruling, not its rationale. (Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 915 [“The sole question properly before us on review of the summary judgment is whether the judge reached the rig......
-
Mackey v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
...three categories of evidentiary rulings. We limit our review to these specific challenges. (See Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 915 ( Carnes ) [on appeal from summary judgment, plaintiff must identify evidentiary rulings claimed to be incorrect].) As......
-
In re Auto. Antitrust Cases
...reviews a court's final rulings on evidentiary objections by applying an abuse of discretion standard.” (Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 915 (Carnes ); see also Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 852, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732.) Ho......