Tarle v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Plaintiff and appellant Patricia Tarle appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (collectively, Kaiser), Dilip Sedani and Wayne Rupnik in this employment discrimination action. Tarle contends the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ evidentiary objections to much of the evidence she submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion (and that such evidence raises a triable issue of material fact). However, Tarle never provided to the trial court any oral or written opposition to the bulk of defendants’ objections. This case, therefore, raises the issue of whether, in the context of a summary judgment motion, a party must provide the trial court with such opposition to an opponent’s objections or be barred from challenging on appeal the trial court’s order sustaining the objections. We conclude that existing law, in the factual context of this case, compels the result that a failure to provide such opposition to the trial court on summary judgment bars a party from challenging on appeal the trial court’s order sustaining the unopposed evidentiary objections. We also determine, however, that as both parties are responsible for substantial flaws in the summary judgment briefing in this case, the proper procedure is to remand with directions for a properly-briefed summary judgment motion.
Comments on Tarle v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan