Rush v. White Corp., 13 Cal. App. 5th 1086 (2017)

In this case (which does not involve employment issues), the trial court granted and the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants based upon plaintiffs’ “procedurally defective separate statement of facts.”  According to the Court, “Plaintiffs’ separate statement in response [to defendants’ separate statement of undisputed material facts] was 155 pages, a statement that did not comply with the Rules of Court, improperly citing to numerous undisputed material facts for specific arguments in the opposition, which undisputed material facts were then supported by multiple paragraphs of multiple declarations, at times by every paragraph of nearly every declaration on file.”  The trial court gave plaintiffs an opportunity to file a “supplemental separate statement” that complied with Cal. Rule of Court 3.1350, but the supplemental statement “still did not comply, and following another hearing the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ noncompliance – as the summary judgment statute expressly provides.”