Motion to enforce stipulation and clarify the Court’s July 3, 2025 order
34-2023-00333876-CU-WT-GDS: Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services 12/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Enforce Stipulation And Clarify July 3, 2025 Order in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
Plaintiff Ryan Crowleys motion to enforce stipulation and clarify the Courts July 3, 2025 order continuing trial (the July 3 Order) is ruled on as follows.
Trial in this action was previously scheduled for September 23, 2025. On July 2, 2025, Defendant California Correctional Health Care Services (Defendant) filed an ex parte application to continue trial. The application represented the parties had stipulated to continue trial and provided a copy of the signed stipulation. On July 3, 2025, the Court issued the July 3 Order granting the application and continuing trial. The July 3 Order noted the application was based on a stipulation and was unopposed. The July 3 Order stated All trial related and discovery deadlines are to be based upon the new trial date.
Plaintiff argues the July 3 Order is inherently inconsistent because it references the parties stipulation while concurrently ruling that all trial related deadlines will be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff contends the parties stipulated that the deadline for a motion for summary judgment would remain based on the original trial date. Plaintiff now request the Court issue an order enforcing the stipulation and clarifying that the deadline for motions for summary judgment remain based on the original trial date.
Plaintiff also notes that Plaintiff filed a timely opposition to the ex parte application that raised this issue. Significantly, neither Plaintiffs current motion nor Plaintiffs opposition to the ex parte application sought to prevent the continuance of trial. Rather, the sole issue raised by Plaintiff is whether the deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment is based on the original trial date per the stipulation of the parties,
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
34-2023-00333876-CU-WT-GDS: Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services 12/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Enforce Stipulation And Clarify July 3, 2025 Order in Department 47
or whether it is based on the current trial date.
In opposition, Defendant argues it withdrew from the agreement to base the deadline for dispositive motions on the original trial date and that the stipulation is not enforceable.
All motions and applications to continue trial must be supported by a factual showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) While the Court considers evidence that the parties stipulated to the continuance in determining whether there is good cause, the Court does not make a final determination as to the validity of a stipulated order and the enforceability of its terms. Thus, while the July 3 Order references that the request was supported by a stipulation, the Court merely considered the evidence of a stipulation in determining good cause. The Court did not make a final determination of the enforceability of any stipulation between the parties to modify the statutory deadlines for a motion for summary judgment.
To the extent Plaintiff is requesting new relief in the form of an order enforcing the parties stipulation, the Court declines to consider the request, because motions to enforce stipulations are not among the enumerated motions heard in this Department. (Local Rule 1.05(B).) Any request to enforce a stipulation regarding the deadline for a motion for summary judgment must be directed to the Civil Home Court Department assigned to this matter.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00333876-CU-WT-GDS: Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services 12/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Enforce Stipulation And Clarify July 3, 2025 Order in Department 47
to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.