ALFRED FLORES v. CDCR, ET AL
MOTION – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Respondent filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 9, 2026. Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act.
Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Local Rule Marin, Civil 2.8G.1.).
The motion is GRANTED.
Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.
IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.