Gonzales v. City of Colton

Filed 4/25/06 Gonzales v. City of Colton CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tara Reilly, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Sandra L. Noël-Leyva and Sandra L. Noël-Leyva for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Best Best & Krieger, Cynthia M. Germano and John D. Higginbotham for Defendant and Respondent.

Story Continued from Part I……

2.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

We next review the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the City on plaintiff's first, second, and third causes of action. On appeal, we review de novo an order granting summary judgment. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860 (Aguilar).) The trial court must grant a summary judgment motion when the evidence shows that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar, at p. 843.) In making this determination, courts view the evidence, including all reasonable inferences supported by that evidence, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar, at p. 843.)

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of producing evidence showing that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 850-851, 854-855.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce specific facts showing a triable issue as to the cause of action or the defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, at pp. 849, 850-851.) Despite the shifting burdens of production, the defendant, as the moving party, always bears the ultimate burden of persuasion as to whether summary judgment is warranted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); Aguilar, at p. 850.)

When the plaintiff has alleged employment discrimination and bases the claim on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, courts utilize a three-step process to determine whether the evidence supports an inference of discrimination or whether the moving party, in this case the employer, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, 356 (Guz), quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) An employer moving for summary judgment may do so by setting forth competent, admissible evidence to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. (Guz, at p. 357.) Then the employee â€