|
|
Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach9/28/2004
sustained 168 of those objections. But, the trial court did not state on which of multiple grounds the objection was sustained. On appeal, plaintiff argues in general terms that: evidence of a hostile environment and discriminatory animus is admissible even though outside the statute of limitations or not personally witnessed by plaintiff; all acts reasonably related to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint are actionable; plaintiff presented substantial evidence that he was offended by the anti-gay slurs and jokes; and even if the trial court's evidentiary exclusions are upheld, plaintiff has presented substantial evidence in support of his claim. Plaintiff has not identified the correct standard of review-abuse of discretion. (Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1059, 1078; People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 203.) Moreover, plaintiff has not specified the evidentiary objections to which his arguments are addressed. Plaintiff has not discussed the multiple grounds of each of the objections. It is plaintiff's burden on appeal to show that the trial court abused its discretion. (In re Lockheed Litigation Cases (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 558, 564; see Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1078.) Plaintiff has not established any abuse of discretion. Therefore, the trial court's evidentiary rulings stand, and we will not consider any evidence as to which an objection was sustained. Plaintiff's additional arguments as to specific evidentiary rulings, first asserted in his reply brief, will not be considered. (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 763-766; In re Marriage of Nolte (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 966, 975.)
B. Summary Judgment
1. Standard of Review
In Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851, the Supreme Court described the parties' burdens on a summary judgment or adjudication motion as follows: " rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court's action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. [Citation.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. . . . [ ] . . . he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. . . . A prim
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|