Motion for Summary Judgment
24CV097364: SANTOS vs ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, A CORPORATION 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, a corporation (Defendant) CRS# 369012716581 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, a corporation on 04/09/2026 is Granted.
Defendant Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. As of the filing of this tentative ruling, there is no opposition filed.
LAW
California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c provides that [a] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).
A defendant moving for summary judgment may either: (1) negate the plaintiffs claim or cause of action with evidence demonstrating that one or more elements of the claim do not exist or cannot be established by admissible evidence, or (2) show that the claim or cause of action is barred by one or more affirmative defenses. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.§ 437c(o).
Summary judgment is properly granted if there is no question of fact and the issues raised by the pleadings may be decided as a matter of law. Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 1461, 1464.
Once a defendant submits evidence that an element to a cause of action has not been established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce admissible evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that issue, claim or cause of action, or defense. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 849.
DISCUSSION
Defendant submits evidence of the training its employees receive, including its general training policies and procedures. UMF 3-6. However, the Court finds that it can, independent of the factual evidence, make a finding that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff does not state a viable claim against Defendant as a public entity. Each of the three causes of action - negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, supervision and retention - sound in negligence. Compl. filed 24CV097364: SANTOS vs ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, A CORPORATION 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, a corporation (Defendant) CRS# 369012716581 in Department 520 October 28, 2024.
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?”
A public entity is only liable as provided by statute, enactment, or law. Government Code section 815 provides that [e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. Gov.'t Code § 815. The Complaint does not identify any statute pursuant to which the negligence causes of action are based. The Court's inquiry can stop here, as there is no viable claim against Defendant - and, Plaintiff has provided no opposition.
UMF 1-2.
In addition, Defendant submits evidence that the underlying factual allegations in the Complaint - that Plaintiff rode a specific bus, on a specific bus line, and suffered an injury - are unsupported. UMF 6-10. There is no triable issue as to any material fact, entitling Defendant to judgment. And, separately, on other grounds, as a matter of law, Defendant is entitled to judgment.
The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to be unrepresented since the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel request to be relieved as counsel on April 3, 2025. Nonetheless, this motion appears to have been properly served on Plaintiff and all parties, including the self-represented Plaintiff, must comply with all procedural rules in this litigation.
Summary judgment is GRANTED and the case is HEREBY DISMISSED.
Defendant shall file and serve a proposed judgment no later than July 15, 2026.
NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the courts final order on July 2, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 1, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.
The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number]. When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.
The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.
ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV097364: SANTOS vs ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, A CORPORATION 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, a corporation (Defendant) CRS# 369012716581 in Department 520 video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.