McCray v. Pacific Bell
Filed 4/5/06 McCray v. Pacific Bell CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| MARK McCRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL, Defendant and Respondent. | C049386
(Super. Ct. No. 02AS00850)
|
Plaintiff Mark McCray, who has sleep apnea, sued his employer, Pacific Bell for disability discrimination and retaliation, after Pacific Bell failed to promote him on numerous occasions to temporary management positions.[1] The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Pacific Bell. McCray filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied because it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion after it had entered judgment.
On appeal, McCray contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were facts to infer he had been denied the promotions because of his sleep apnea and had been retaliated against for complaining about the discrimination. He further contends the trial court should have granted a continuance of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and delayed entry of judgment until his statutory time to seek reconsideration had expired. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On review of a summary judgment in the defendant's favor, we independently examine the record to determine whether triable issues of material fact exist. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 767.) In performing this de novo review, we must â€
