Trial Judge's Refusal To Continue Hearing On Motion For Summary Judgment Was An Abuse Of Discretion.
You know that plaintiff/appellant Richard A. Denton had a very bad day in the trial court when the trial judge says: "Now, what can I do for you?" and the Court of Appeal comments, "And it was downhill for Denton from there." Denton v. City and County of San Francisco et al., A147384 (1/2 10/30/17) (Richman, Kline, Miller).
Denton filed employment-related claims against the City, the City filed a motion for summary judgment, and with his opposition about to be due, the City and Denton mediated and settled. Denton's attorney then filed a notice of conditional settlement with the court.
Then things started going sideways. Denton discharged his attorney for refusing to withdraw certain 998 offers (notably, however, not saying that all settlement offers were withdrawn), and Denton proceeded in pro per. The City attorney then emailed ex parte notice entitled, "Application for an Order Vacating Notice of Settlement Filed by Plaintiff." As the Court of Appeal explained, the ex parte notice was misleading, because the application also asked the court to maintain the previously scheduled date for the hearing on the City's motion for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the ex parte motion, vacating the notice of conditional settlement, and maintaining the hearing the date for the MSJ, without taking the bench.
You can see what's coming. Denton did not file an opposition to the MSJ. He showed up at the MSJ hearing and asked for a continuance. The trial judge told him there was no basis for a continuance, and entered judgment. Denton moved in pro per for a new trial, and the City attorney argued that Denton failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment and the parties did not have a settlement agreement. The trial judge was unmoved. Denton lost his $250K settlement with the City (which still required approval by the Board of Supervisors).
So it truly was all downhill for Denton, until he appealed, and clawed his way uphill. The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to continue the summary judgment hearing and denying the motion for a new trial: "Denton should have been granted the continuance in the circumstances he found himself, circumstances that were not his fault." The order denying the motion for new trial and the summary judgment were both reversed.
COMMENT: The opinion makes for interesting reading, because without actually accusing anyone of a breach of ethics, it suggests displeasure with sharp practice. Item: Remarking on defendants' argument that "'Because No Settlement Was Ever Reached, Denton Had No Reasonable Expectation' that the hearing would be vacated", Justice Richman writes, "In light of the facts set forth above, we wonder how defendants can even assert such a position." Item: "[W]e are troubled by defendants' argument of technical noncompliance with the rules, particularly in light of their position that their own noncompliance with the ex parte notice rules -- noncompliance they implicitly acknowledged -- be overlooked." Ouch.