Cherie v. City of San Diego CA4/1

Filed 11/22/23 Cherie v. City of San Diego CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BERHANE CHERIE, D080951

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00056531-CU-WT-CTL) CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Affirmed. Berhane Cherie, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, and Paul H. James, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this wrongful termination action originally filed in 2019, self- represented Berhane Cherie appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted City of San Diego’s (City) motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Cherie does not directly challenge this ruling. Instead, he seeks to litigate the underlying matter and introduce an additional theory of liability. We

resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The appellate record supplied by Cherie is insufficient to support a proper factual and procedural summary. For context, however, we provide the following summary based on the register of actions and the trial court’s minute order. In October 2019, Cherie filed a wrongful termination complaint against City based on alleged disability discrimination, failure to prevent disability discrimination, failure to accommodate disability, failure to engage in the interactive disability accommodation process, and retaliation. Roughly 20 months later, Cherie filed a First Amended Complaint. On August 20, 2021, City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. City contended that none of Cherie’s causes of action had “merit” and there were “no triable issue[s] of material fact as to the matters sought to be adjudicated.” The court continued the trial date to March 25, 2022. City filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on December 3, 2021. On February 3, 2022, Cherie and City stipulated to continuing the summary judgment motion hearing to June 17, 2022. On February 4, 2022, Cherie filed a substitution of attorney and became a self-represented litigant. Cherie did not file an opposition to either of City’s summary judgment motions. The trial court granted City’s summary judgment motion on June 17, 2022. Because Cherie responded to neither the original motion for summary judgment nor the amended motion, the trial court noted City’s motion was unopposed and construed Cherie’s lack of opposition as a “concession on the