Golshani v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cal. State U. CA2/3

── Golshani v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cal. State U. CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Golshani v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cal. State U. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE FOROUZAN GOLSHANI, B337469 Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 20STCV40168 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Douglas W. Stern, Judge. Reversed. Gusdorff Law, Janet Gusdorff; Hennig Kramer, Kramer Brown Hui, Robert A. Hennig, Jennifer R. Kramer, Dat Tommy Phan, Sam M. Brown; The Law Office of Nicole Meyers, Principle Employment Law, Nicole Meyers; Public Employees Legal and Oshea V. Orchid for Plaintiff and Appellant.  Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Jens B. Koepke, Greg Wolff; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Daphne Anneet and Vanessa M. Hooker for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ Plaintiff Forouzan Golshani appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the California State University (the Board) on his claim for unlawful retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA or Act, Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.).1 Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Golshani as the party opposing summary judgment, we conclude there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Golshani made protected disclosures about threats to employee health and safety under the CWPA, whether those disclosures were a contributing factor in a sequence of adverse employment actions that followed, and whether the same adverse actions would have been taken absent the protected disclosures. We reverse the summary judgment. BACKGROUND Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts in the light most favorable to Golshani as the nonmoving party, liberally construing the evidence in his favor, except that to which objections were made and sustained. (Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 43 Cal.4th 201, 206; Vatalaro v. County of Sacramento (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 367, 377 (Vatalaro).) We note the trial court sustained the Board’s objections to significant parts of Golshani’s summary judgment declaration, based largely on conflicts between the declaration and Golshani’s earlier 1 Statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise specified. 2 deposition testimony. We therefore disregard statements in Golshani’s declaration to which objections were sustained and draw the relevant facts from his deposition. We likewise disregard statements in the Board’s supporting declarations to which Golshani’s evidentiary objections were sustained. (See Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 [“Where a party’s self-serving declarations contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party’s own prior sworn testimony, they should be disregarded.”]; accord Vatalaro, at p. 381.) 1. Safety in the College of Engineering Dr. Golshani was the Dean of the College of Engineering at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB or the University) from August 2007 until his non-retention in January 2020. During his tenure, Golshani received excellent performance reviews and was recognized for h