Andres Valle v. San Antonio Regional Hospital

TENTATIVE RULING FOR MAY 14, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Andres Valle v. San Antonio Regional Hospital – CIVRS2400091 Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment Movant: Defendant San Antonio Regional Hospital Respondent: Plaintiff Andres Valle (No Opposition) RULING: Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant - to provide Order(s) and give Notice. ______________________________________________________________________________

The proof of service (POS) of the motion states it was electronically served. But nothing in the file demonstrates that Plaintiff consented to electronic service. Self-represented parties must manifest their affirmative consent to electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b).) Such consent may occur by the self-represented party serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the Court. (Ibid.)

In addition, the mailing address listed on the POS is incorrect, although nothing is presented to demonstrate service occurred by mail, the POS lists the mailing address as 1291 E. 11th Street, #11, Upland CA 91786, where Plaintiff’s mailing address is listed as 1291 E. 9th Street, #11, Upland CA 91786.

Therefore, unless at the hearing Defendant can demonstrate proper service of the Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) on Plaintiff or that Plaintiff consented to electronic service, the requisite 81 days’ notice, plus additional time depending on the method of service, is not demonstrated to have been provided.

Per case law, the statutory time for notice of an MSJ is mandatory. (Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 764; McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 115.) Without the requisite service, the Court has to either deny the motion, without prejudice, or continue the motion for at least 81 days for the Hospital to provide proper notice. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.)

Separately this issue with service also raises the propriety of the Court’s order deeming RFAs admitted. Service of the RFA discovery and the RFA motion also occurred by electronic service. This puts in issue whether the Court should, on its own motion, reconsider its ruling deeming the RFAs admitted given the issue with service. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.) If Plaintiff did not receive proper service of the RFAs or motion to have them deemed admitted, then Plaintiff’s due process rights are implicated. The Court on its own motion will seek to remedy its own error if it believes it has done so.

Dated: May 14, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

3