CCP 437c(b)(3) requires a summary judgment opposition to contain a separate statement responding to the moving party’s separate statement. It also provides that failure to comply with the separate statement requirement may constitute sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, to grant the motion. This decision affirms a summary judgment granted at least in part because plaintiff did not file a separate statement in opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion. The court had given plaintiff two continuances to file her opposition. This was not a simple summary judgment motion. Plaintiff had alleged 16 causes of action; defendant’s separate statement listed 161 facts. Having examined the motion sufficiently to tell it was not defective on its face, the court was not required to examine the moving party’s showing in detail to determine whether it met that party’s initial burden in moving for summary judgment. The decision disagrees with Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081 and similar decisions which mandate a review of the moving party’s evidence despite the absence of an opposing separate statement.