Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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 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.
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?”
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
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant California Department of Parks and Recreations (Defendant) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff Kristin Gordons (Plaintiff) second, third, and fourth causes of action is DENIED as untimely.
By way of the instant motion Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs second cause of action for discrimination under FEHA, third cause of action for harassment under FEHA, and fourth cause of action for failure to prevent harassment under FEHA on the grounds that each is barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and because Plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action for harassment against Defendant as a matter of law.
Code of Civil Procedure section 438, subdivision (e) states: No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court permits otherwise.
This action was originally set for trial on October 28, 2024. Trial is currently scheduled to commence on August 11, 2025. As the instant motion was filed on June 18, 2025, well after the initial trial date, it is untimely. Further, Defendant neither sought nor obtained leave of court to file the motion after the initial trial date. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider the motion on its merits. The Court does not deem the statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings to include a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings as the notice of motion expressly states that the motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438 and makes no reference to a common law motion.
The Court declines Defendants request to hear the instant motion without leave, because Defendant has presented no facts or argument in support of why the Court should exercise such discretion. Indeed, the Court has concerns about Defendants diligence as well as the propriety of the issues being raised and resolved in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on Defendants own submissions. The Court notes that in March 2025, Defendant sought to continue the trial date, asserting that it needed additional time to file a motion for summary judgment or adjudication on grounds that
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53
Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (See March 28, 2025 Order.) The Court denied Defendants motion, finding that Defendants inability to file a timely motion was due to Defendants own conduct, including the failure to complete the necessary discovery and file a motion within the more than two years since it had appeared in the action. (Ibid.) Subsequently, almost three months after the motion to continue the trial date was denied, on June 18, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, raising failure to exhaust administrative remedies as well as failure to state a claim for certain causes of action.[1] In its reply, Defendant requests that the Court ignore certain submissions by Plaintiff and asserts that [i]f this Court determines the issue of administrative exhaustion is not appropriate for resolution via this MJOP, DPR requests the opportunity to convert this motion to a summary judgment motion . . . . (Reply at 5:21-23.)
While citing no authority in support of this request or how it would comply with the notice requirements for summary judgment/summary adjudication motions, the Court also notes that granting such relief would serve as reconsideration of the Courts March 28, 2025 Order expressly rejecting this relief, without any bases to do so provided.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
[1] Defendant was granted ex parte relief to advance the hearing date (but not shorten
time, as requested) based on available hearing dates. The Court made no orders granting leave to hear an untimely motion or otherwise opining upon the timeliness of the motion.