Tash v. The Permanente Medical Group CA3

Filed 6/8/21 Tash v. The Permanente Medical Group CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

KRYSTLE TASH,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C089143

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2016- 00189518-CU-OE-GDS) THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Krystle Tash filed a complaint against The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and others (collectively Permanente) alleging causes of action for discrimination and harassment based on her gender and her need to express breast milk during working hours. The trial court granted Permanente’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Tash. Tash now asserts nine arguments for why the trial court erred prejudicially, but she does not provide us with citations to evidence in the record on appeal. She bases her arguments on allegations in the complaint rather than on the evidence produced in

1

connection with the summary judgment motion. We conclude Tash forfeited consideration of all issues raised on appeal because her briefing fails to support her arguments with citations to evidence in the record on appeal and thereby fails to establish that material issues of fact remain to be tried or that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. We will therefore affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION Permanente answered Tash’s complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court issued a 14-page tentative ruling granting the motion, held a hearing on the motion, and confirmed the tentative ruling with some additional comments. After the trial court granted the summary judgment motion, Tash filed a motion for new trial. The trial court held a hearing on the new trial motion and denied it with a 12-page minute order. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Permanente. Tash filed an appellant’s appendix as the record on appeal, consisting of 1,653 pages, with an 88-page reporter’s transcript. But her appellant’s opening brief contains few citations to the record on appeal. The citations she provides relate only to her complaint and to what happened in connection with the motions and hearings. Nowhere in the opening brief does Tash cite to the record on appeal to support the facts she asserts as true in her opening brief. She does not cite to the evidence presented in the summary judgment motion. Instead, she summarizes the allegations in her complaint with citation only to the complaint. But citation to her complaint is not a sufficient basis for us to reverse the judgment because successful opposition to a summary judgment motion requires evidence, not just allegations, showing that there are disputed issues of material fact for which a trial is necessary or that Tash is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Tash fails to cite to any such evidence in the record on appeal. Regardless of the strength of Tash’s legal arguments, they cannot succeed