Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of Cal. CA3

Filed 7/28/23 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of Cal. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ---- JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C095488

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2013- 00155479-CU-WT-GDS) REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk sued the Regents of the University of California (UC Regents) asserting causes of action related to his termination of employment. The trial court granted UC Regents’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of UC Regents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.)1 Representing himself on appeal as he did for most of the proceedings in the trial court, Waszczuk now contends the trial court (1) improperly granted summary judgment because UC Regents’s documents submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment were fabricated, (2) abused its discretion by not granting Waszczuk more time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and (3) did not allow Waszczuk enough time to argue at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Finding no error, we will affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

APPLICABLE LAW The purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether trial is in fact necessary to resolve a dispute. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A plaintiff may contend there is no defense to an action or a defendant may contend the action has no merit. (Ibid.) The court must grant the motion if the papers show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Ibid; § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party must support the motion with evidence including affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice must or may be taken. (Aguilar, at p. 843; § 437c, subd. (b).) In response to a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must file “a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. . . . Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (§ 437c, subd. (b)(3).) When “reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the relevant facts are limited to those set forth in the parties’ statements of undisputed facts, supported by affidavits and declarations, filed in support of and opposition to the motion in the present case, to the extent those facts have evidentiary support. [Citations.] Facts not contained in the separate statements do not exist. [Citation.]” (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 112 (Lewis).) The required separate statement serves an additional function: to aid the trial court in discharging its statutory duties. (North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 31.) Trial courts are obliged to explain the reasons for rulings with specific reference to the evidence which indicates the existence or nonexistence of a triable issue of fact. (Ibid; § 437c, subd. (g).) A court should insist on strict compliance with the required separate statement because the court’s ability to focus