In a recent court filing, a plaintiff has faced a significant setback in her legal battle against a major pharmaceutical company and an individual defendant. Melissa Mandell-Brown, the plaintiff, filed her complaint on April 15, 2020, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against Novo Nordisk Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal of the State of California on March 6, 2025.
Melissa Mandell-Brown's lawsuit involved serious allegations including discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination. However, her case took a turn when she failed to oppose a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants on May 18, 2022. This motion argued that none of Mandell-Brown's claims could withstand summary judgment due to lack of evidence supporting them. The defendants presented an extensive list of undisputed facts and evidence intended to demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons for eliminating Mandell-Brown’s job position.
Despite being granted two continuances by the court to prepare her opposition—one moving the hearing from August 3 to September 16, and another to October 14—Mandell-Brown did not file any opposition papers or appear at the hearings. As a result, on October 14, 2022, Judge Daniel S. Murphy granted summary judgment in favor of Novo Nordisk Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian based on procedural grounds; specifically, Mandell-Brown's failure to submit required documentation opposing the motion.
The trial court ruled that there were no genuine issues regarding any material facts alleged in Mandell-Brown’s complaint and found that she could not prove essential elements of her causes of action as a matter of law. On December 30, 2022, Mandell-Brown appealed this decision but faced challenges due to procedural missteps in her initial handling of the case.
The crux of Mandell-Brown’s appeal centered around whether the trial court should have independently assessed if defendants met their burden before granting summary judgment due to her lack of opposition filings. However, according to Section 437c subdivision (b)(3) of California's Code of Civil Procedure, courts are vested with discretion to grant such motions when opposing parties fail to submit necessary separate statements detailing disputed facts.
Representing Melissa Mandell-Brown were attorneys Gary Rand & Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis from their respective law firm while Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represented Novo Nordisk Inc., with Max Fischer leading their defense team alongside George S. Benjamin and Thomas M. Peterson.
This legal drama highlights critical aspects about procedural compliance within litigation processes where adherence can significantly impact outcomes regardless substantive merits underlying cases themselves—an important lesson for litigants navigating complex judicial systems like California’s appellate courts under Case ID B326147 presided over by Judge Daniel S Murphy along with concurring judges Baker Acting P J Moor J Kim D J .