Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-02-08

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text

803 chars
UCD also moved for summary judgment on the grounds
that the record demonstrated “a history and continuing prac-
tice of program expansion” for women that satisfied Option
Two of the three-part test. Although the district court granted
summary judgment on the notice grounds discussed above,
UCD contends that we could, alternatively, affirm the district
court’s decision on the merits. See Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker
Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003). That is so, but
only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
students, there are no genuine issues of material fact concern-
ing UCD’s compliance with Option Two. See, e.g., Becerril
v. Pima County Assessor’s Office, 587 F.3d 1162, 1163 (9th
Cir. 2009). On the record before us we cannot affirm on this
alternative ground.