Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 05/29/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. 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.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 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

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 05/29/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 05/29/2024 is continued to 07/02/2024 at 1:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.

This matter was previously scheduled for hearing on February 14, 2024. The Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing to permit Plaintiff additional time to discover information essential to the outcome of the motion. (Minute Order, 02/14/2024.) The Court indicated supplemental opposition and reply papers would be due based on the new hearing date. (Ibid.)

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. The Court’s records do not include any other documents filed in opposition, such as an opposing separate statement or evidence. An opposing party’s failure to file a separate statement in opposition may, in the Court’s discretion, constitute a sufficient ground for granting the motion for summary judgment/adjudication.(Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3); see Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 568; Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 418; Batarse v. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1000 (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 820, 831-833.)

However, the Court notes the opening paragraph of the opposing memorandum references a separate statement of material disputed facts and declarations. Further, on May 24, 2024, Defendant filed various reply documents, including a reply to Plaintiff’s separate statement and objections to evidence in opposition. Thus, it is clear that at minimum, Plaintiff served opposition papers beyond its memorandum of points and authorities, although such additional papers are not currently reflected in the Register of Actions as filed.

Under these circumstances and in recognition that Defendant had an opportunity to review and respond to the missing opposing papers, the Court, in its discretion, shall CONTINUE this matter and ORDERS that Plaintiff file the additional opposing documents in the identical form that were previously served (other than the memorandum of points and authorities which is already on file). No alterations may be made to any of the previously served documents. Plaintiff may provide a copy of this order to the Clerk of Court accompanying the additional filings.

On or before June 5, 2024, Plaintiff shall file true and correct copies of any additional opposing documents that were previously served on Defendant. No other supplemental briefing or filings will be allowed.