Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff opposes the motion both on the merits and on the ground that the parties had stipulated that the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment / adjudication has

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333876-CU-WT-GDS: Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

expired and shall remain expired.

Plaintiff argues:

“ Defendant has filed its motion in direct violation of their stipulation not to do so. When Defendant sought assent from Plaintiff to continue the trial date, Plaintiff agreed, so long as he would not be required to oppose a frivolous motion for summary judgment. (Exh. 27.)”

(Opposition, 7:25 – 8:2.)

Plaintiff submits for the Court’s review the Joint Stipulation to Vacate Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference Dates, which provides, in part, “That all discovery cut-off, motion cut-off, expert witness demand and disclosure and all other related pretrial dates be extended so that they are based upon the new trial date, except that the deadline for the parties to file a motion for summary judgment/adjudication has expired and shall remain expired.” (Plaintiff’s Exh. 27. [Emphasis added.])

On reply, Defendant does not address Plaintiff’s argument that the parties stipulated that the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment/adjudication is expired. The Court construes Defendant’s failure to address the stipulation as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, “it is assumed that [the party] concedes” that ground].)

As a result of the stipulation made by the parties that “the deadline for the parties to file a motion for summary judgment/adjudication has expired and shall remain expired,” Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is DENIED in its entirety.

The Court need not reach the parties’ objections, but notes that Defendant did not raise any objections relating to the stipulation at issue. The Court likewise need not reach Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a proposed order pursuant to CCP § 437c and CRC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333876-CU-WT-GDS: Ryan Crowley vs. California Correctional Health Care Services 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

3.1312.