6
The case before us presents a double-waiver. First, the Carlton waiver. It is true that
plaintiff raised the issue of inadequate notice in his opposition. But he did not claim to have
suffered any prejudice in drafting his response or in preparing for the hearing, nor does the
record reflect he requested a continuance. Similarly, on appeal, plaintiff does not argue he was
prejudiced by a notice that was improperly shortened by just one day. As in Carlton, the
argument that inadequate notice precluded litigation of the summary judgment motion is
waived.5
Second, we have no record of the trial court ruling on this issue. It is not addressed in
the minute order and, given the record of the oral proceedings is absent, nothing suggests
plaintiff pressed the court for a ruling. It is entirely possible plaintiff abandoned the argument
altogether. The failure to obtain a ruling is an independent waiver of the appellate claim.
(People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 813; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping
Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 670, fn. 1; People v. Obie (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 744, 750,
disapproved on another ground in People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109, 120, fn. 4.)
Hearing on Summary Judgment
Standard of Review
“On appeal after a summary judgment has been granted, we review de novo the trial
court’s decision to grant summary judgment and are not bound by the trial court’s stated
reasons. [Citations.] In reviewing the summary judgment, we apply the same three-step
analysis used by the trial court: we (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings;
(2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine
whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.
[Citation.] Like the trial court, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the