Bethea v. City of Inglewood CA2/7

Filed 9/23/13 Bethea v. City of Inglewood CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ROBERT J. BETHEA, B240630

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC063863) v.

CITY OF INGLEWOOD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cary H. Nishimoto, Judge. Affirmed. Robert J. Bethea, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Atkinson, Andelson, Loya Ruud & Romo, Irma Rodríguez Moisa, Amber M. Solano and Jorge J. Luna for Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________

Robert J. Bethea, an unsuccessful applicant for employment with the City of Inglewood, sued the city after being passed over for an interview for his desired position. Inglewood obtained a summary judgment in its favor, and Bethea appeals. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Bethea applied in 2007 to become a Senior Personnel Analyst for Inglewood, but he did not receive an interview for the position. He sued Inglewood by means of a verified complaint for age discrimination, retaliation, fraud, and breach of contract. In August 2011 Inglewood moved for summary judgment. The following month, Inglewood successfully moved for leave to file a first amended answer that replaced its earlier general denials with specific denials of the allegations in the operative complaint. Bethea did not oppose the motion to amend. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in Inglewood’s favor. Bethea appeals.