Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. - March 6, 2025)

Unless it involves new appellate counsel desperately trying to correct the errors of a prior representative, it baffles me how someone can (1) entirely fail to respond to a robust summary judgment motion, (2) even after filing and having granted two ex parte motions to continue the MSJ hearing to permit them to file an opposition, and yet (3) try to prevail on appeal.

Regardless, it didn't work. Motion for summary judgment granted and affirmed based on the plaintiff's failure to file a separate statement (or, indeed, anything at all) in opposition.

There's a split of appellate authority on whether the trial court has a sua sponte obligation to make sure, notwithstanding the absence of a separate statement, that the moving party's papers present a prima facie case for summary judgment. The opinion today says it doesn't; at least one other Court of Appeal opinion says it does.

As a practical matter, I don't think it matters much; most unopposed MSJs are going to be granted regardless. But it is an issue that comes up daily in the trial courts, so I suspect the California Supreme Court will eventually have to take the issue up and resolve the split.

If only so trial courts know what to do.