CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA’S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al.

BACKGROUND

CalSTRS initiated this action on July 1, 2024, alleging causes of action for disgorgement, fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. (Complaint.) CalSTRS alleges that it entered into a written agreement (the “Prime Contract”) with DPR GP effective as of February 22, 2018 for DPR GP to act as its general contractor for the Project, specifically to “provide construction management at risk services consisting of preconstruction, construction and post-construction services in connection with the new CalSTRS Headquarters Phase II” project. (Id., ¶ 30.)

As alleged, to “ensure and secure CONTRACTOR’s faithful performance of the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, SURETIES issued Bond No. 018224203/30071292/9283012/47-SUR-300122-01-005 (the “BOND”) in the Penal Sum of $248,039,376.00, naming CONTRACTOR as Principal, SURETIES as Surety, and CALSTRS as Obligee. SURETIES and CONTRACTOR therein agreed to “jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns to [CALSTRS] for the performance of the Construction Contract, which is incorporated [t]herein by reference.” (Id., ¶ 33.)

On November 1, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendants FMB, Pat Baird Acoustics, Inc., and Rosendin Electric, Inc. on the basis that Plaintiff’s initial claims for fraud and civil conspiracy consisted of “conclusory allegations” that “failed[ed] to provide any real information about how the Demurring Defendants and other subcontractors are connected with the allegedly fraudulent information communicated by DPR [GP].” (11-1- 24 Minute Order.) Further, “[b]y failing to allege sufficient facts demonstrating the underlying fraud as it relates to the Demurring Defendants, Plaintiff has also failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating a civil conspiracy.” (Ibid.) On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), adding additional allegations regarding the Subcontractor Defendants.

Rosendin now moves for summary judgment and/or adjudication as to the Second and Third Causes of Action for fraud and civil conspiracy, respectively.

LEGAL STANDARD

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. The Court first identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define and limit the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382; Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694.) Therefore, all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must address the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment may not create issues outside the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Second, the Court is required to determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant bears the burden of persuasion that “one or more elements of” the “cause of action” in question “cannot be established,” or that “there is a complete defense” thereto. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781.) Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required only to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-855.)

Finally, once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (CCP, § 437c, subd. (p); Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) “There is a genuine issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 845.)

In ruling on the motion, the court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Id., at p. 843.) “Where the essence of the opposition to a motion for summary judgment is that the opposing party draws a different legal conclusion than movant from the facts to which the parties agree, resolution of the matter may be held on summary judgment as a matter of law.” (Niederer v. Ferrerira (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1499.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. CRC Rule 3.1350(b) mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Also, summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. CCP section 437c(f)(1) states: “A party may

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty.”

ANALYSIS

Regarding Issues 1(a) and 1(b), Rosendin asserts that CalSTRS cannot show that Rosendin either made a misrepresentation of fact or did so with knowledge of falsity or lack of reasonable ground for belief in the truth of the representation because the alleged misrepresentations are actually legal disputes regarding contract performance and payment entitlement and Rosendin has a non-frivolous argument that it was entitled to the payments it sought. (Mot., pp. 17:10-21:5.) Regarding Issue 1(c), Rosendin argues that CalSTRS cannot show that it relied on any alleged misrepresentation because fraud claims do not lie for predictions of future legal outcomes in the hands of third parties. (Id., pp. 21:6-22.)

Because CalSTRS’s conspiracy claim is dependent on the predicate fraud claim, Rosendin argues through Issue 2(a) that CalSTRS’s conspiracy claim fails for the same reasons. (Id., pp. 22:21-23:16.) Rosendin further argues through Issue 2(b) that CalSTRS identifies no facts proving the formation and operation of a conspiracy. (Id., p. 23:17-25.)

CalSTRS opposes, arguing that Rosendin’s admission that there are pending legal disputes between the Parties precludes summary adjudication and, even assuming Rosendin met its initial burden, the motion must be denied because CalSTRS has raised disputes of material fact. (See generally, Opp.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Rosendin’s motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication must be denied because Rosendin has failed to meet its initial burden and, in any event, CalSTRS has shown that at least one material factual dispute exists.

Rosendin’s Evidentiary Burden

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

“The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.” (Orient Handel v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 693.) Rosendin’s motion challenges the knowledge of falsity and reliance elements. To recover on a cause of action for fraud, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the false representations were made with knowledge of their falsity or without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. (Civ.

Code, §§ 1710(2), 1572(2).) “Reliance exists when the misrepresentation [] was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's conduct which altered his or her legal relations, and when without such misrepresentation [] he or she would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction. (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239 (Rothwell).)

A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780- 781 [“a moving defendant need not support his motion with affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the responding party's case. Instead, the moving defendant may point to the absence of evidence to support the plaintiff’s case.” (emphasis original)].) To meet its burden, the defendant is required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-855.)

While the absence of evidence can be shown by admissions in a plaintiff’s discovery responses, CalSTRS’s responses here do not constitute admissions that it has no evidence to support its claim. (See Sheffield v. Eli Lilly Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 583, 611 [summary judgment proper in product liability case where plaintiff admits inability to identify defendant as manufacturer of the alleged defective product]; Union Bank v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 [factually-devoid responses support inference that plaintiff had no facts to support claim and shifted burden to plaintiff to present evidence].)

Contrary to Rosendin’s position on the instant motion, the question is not whether Rosendin performed the specific work or incurred the specific cost. The issue – as framed by CalSTRS’s operative complaint and consistent with CalSTRS’s discovery responses – is whether Rosendin performed that work and incurred those costs with the intent to “accelerate” to achieve a particular substantial completion deadline[1] or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

otherwise submitted applications for payment that Rosendin was not actually entitled to submit. (See AoE, Exh. 10, CalSTRS’s response to SROG Nos. 5 [“State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that ROSENDIN ‘knowingly, intentionally, and falsely represented that ROSENDIN earned and was entitled to payment from CalSTRS’ on the PROJECT.”], 29 [“State all facts supporting YOUR cause of action for civil conspiracy against ROSENDIN.”].)

Here, while the deadline is rapidly approaching, discovery has not yet closed.[2] Moreover, it is conceivable that, through examination[3] of Rosendin’s representatives regarding their good faith belief that they were entitled to payment under the contracts, CalSTRS could elicit testimony refuting that belief, including by challenging the reasonableness of Rosendin’s interpretation of the contracts and/or raising questions of credibility. On a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not weigh evidence or assess credibility. (Sandell v.

Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 319.) “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.” (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 254-55; see also Stewart v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 468, 482 [citing Anderson with approval].) Moreover, the Court must draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.)

If a moving defendant fails to meet their burden, the motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication fails and it is unnecessary to examine the plaintiff’s opposing evidence. The motion must be denied. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1175-1176.)

Again, to be clear, CalSTRS will bear the burden at trial to prove fraud, including a misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, and justifiable reliance. But Rosendin bears the burden on this motion and has failed to affirmatively demonstrate – with citation to relevant evidence – that CalSTRS does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence necessary to support its claims. Accordingly, Rosendin’s motion must be denied.

Disputes of Fact

Even if Rosendin had met its initial burden, CalSTRS has raised a dispute of material fact that precludes the Court from granting Rosendin’s motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

Rosendin relies on a total of 76 undisputed material facts (“UMF”) for the above issues. (Sep. Stmt.) However, all issues – except for Issue 2(b), which adds one additional UMF – rely on UMF Nos. 1-15, which are repeated and numbered sequentially. (Ibid.)

CalSTRS purports to dispute UMF Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 41, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 61, 63, 66, 68, 70, and 71; and adds Additional Material Facts (“AMF”) within UMF Nos. 1-76 and AMF Nos. 77-299. (CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt.)

While the Court is not persuaded that these are all true disputes and/or are supported by admissible evidence, the presence of a single triable issue of material fact mandates denial of a summary judgment motion. (CCP, § 437c(c); Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Ch.10:28, 10:88.)

UMF No. 11 is repeated in UMF Nos. 26, 41, 56, and 71 and is, therefore, purportedly material to each issue presented by Rosendin. (See UMF Nos. 11, 26, 41, 56, 71.) UMF No. 11 provides that “[a]t all times, including at the time it originally submitted its billings, Rosendin’s position has been that it is entitled to payment for the costs described in the disputed payment requests pursuant to the controlling contract documents.” (UMF No. 11.) In support, Rosendin relies on (1) the declaration of its Division Manager Tamara Rapozo, who describes Rosendin’s billing process (AoE, Rapozo Decl., ¶¶ 2-10)[4]; (2) the Work Authorization for Rosendin (AoE, Exh. 1); (3) the master subcontract (AoE, Exh. 2); and (4) CalSTRS’s responses to Special Interrogatories (AoE, Exh. 10). (UMF No. 11.)

Rosendin does not identify any specific provisions of the Work Authorization or master subcontract, or identify any specific discovery responses that support the UMF, in violation of California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350(d)(3).[5]

CalSTRS disputes, arguing that when requesting additional compensation under the change orders, Rosendin knew that it was not performing its work in such a manner that the Project would be completed by the given deadline. (CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt, UMF No. 11.) CalSTRS relies on excerpts from the depositions of Ms. Azevedo and Mr. Higgins, as well as various discovery responses and some of the documents referenced in those discovery responses, including admissions that the work was not completed in accordance with the applicable schedule. (Ibid.; see OAoE, Exh. 6, Rosendin’s Responses to RFA Nos. 49-51.) CalSTRS’s also adds AMF Nos. 11.1 through 11.9, which purport to identify additional contractual obligations impacting Rosendin’s entitlement to payment. (See CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt, UMF No. 11.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

The Court is aware that Rosendin has objected to the deposition transcripts and certain documents obtained in discovery on the grounds of improper authentication, lacks foundation, and/or lacks personal knowledge. (See Rosendin Evidentiary Objections.) Because Rosendin failed to meet its initial burden, the Court need not reach CalSTRS’s evidence and, therefore, need not resolve Rosendin’s objections. However, to the extent the Court addresses the dispute regarding UMF No. 11 as an alternative basis upon which to deny Rosendin’s motion, the Court notes that, even if the Court were to exclude the evidence objected to by Rosendin, CalSTRS has still raised a factual dispute that must be resolved by the fact finder.

Fundamentally, CalSTRS challenges the credibility of the testimony offered by Rosendin regarding its “position” that “at all times,” it has been “entitled to payment for the costs described in the disputed payment requests pursuant to the controlling contract documents.” This dispute is a sufficient basis upon which to deny summary judgment.

Regarding reliance, Rosendin further argues that CalSTRS cannot show that it reasonably relied on Rosendin’s representations because a prediction of future events is not actionable as fraud, citing Brakke v. Economic Concepts, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 761, 769. (Mot., p. 1:6-22:20.) Rosendin asserts that “Rosendin’s representation that it would accelerate its work to meet a completion date set forth in the OCOs was subject to a future legal determination regarding the conduct of the OFSM and how its actions delayed the Project” and “[j]ust as the defendants in Brakke could not predict the IRS’ legal decision, Rosendin cannot predict this Court’s or a jury’s ultimate legal findings as to the Project critical path and entitlement to excusable or compensable delay.” (Id., p. 21:20-25.)

The Court continues to disagree that Brakke is analogous. (See 3-6-26 Minute Order.) In Brakke, the defendant represented that certain pension plans would receive favorable tax treatment, even though that issue had not yet been resolved. (Brakke, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 769.) The court, relying on prior tax cases, held that “it simply was not reasonable for plaintiffs to rely on representations concerning how the IRS would treat their pension plan in the future.” (Ibid.) Here, the alleged representations concerned, in pertinent part, a specific substantial-compliance date and Defendants’ ability or willingness to meet it – not a prediction about how a third party like the IRS might act in the future or how the fact finder would ultimately resolve the Parties’ legal dispute.

***

As it relates to Rosendin and the other subcontractors, this is not a breach of contract

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

claim. As such, Rosendin is correct that the Court need not resolve the Parties’ dispute regarding the contracts and whether Rosendin was actually entitled to seek the payments sought. But it does not follow that these issues are purely matters of law that can be adjudicated on the instant motion. Ultimately, in a fraud claim (and related conspiracy claim), the trier of fact will not be adjudicating who was right about what the contracts actually provide. Rather, the ultimate question is whether Rosendin represented that it accelerated work to achieve a particular deadline when it knew that it could not or would not achieve that deadline, or otherwise submitted payment applications when it was not entitled to the payments it requested.

Rosendin’s knowledge and intent is what matters. The trier of fact will consider Rosendin’s assertion that it believed it was entitled to those amounts and CalSTRS’s assertion that Rosendin was not – including by reviewing the terms of the Parties’ contracts – and determine whether Rosendin’s position was reasonable and whether their testimony is credible. The Court cannot resolve that dispute on the instant motion.

Because UMF No. 11, and therefore CalSTRS’s dispute, is incorporated into every issue presented for adjudication in Rosendin’s motion, Rosendin’s motion must fail.

DISPOSITION

Rosendin’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.

Having so ruled, the Court need not reach the Parties remaining arguments.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

[1] Relatedly, CalSTRS asserts that Rosendin’s representations when executing change orders that

it would accelerate work in exchange for additional payments were fraudulent. [2] Based on the Court’s most recent Case Management Conference minute orders, the deadline

for the completion of discovery is generally tied to the original July 20, 2026 trial date, meaning June 20, 2026. (5-15-26 Minute Order; 6-5-26 Minute Order; CCP, § 2024.020.) However, other outstanding discovery subject to anticipated motions to compel before this Court or dispute resolution before the anticipated Discovery Referee must be completed no later than September 11, 2026. (6-5-26 Minute Order.) [3] As CalSTRS has previously suggested to this Court, it intends to present its case through

witnesses from DPR and/or the subcontractors. [4] Although not cited by Rosendin, the UMF is identical to paragraph 11 of Ms. Rapozo’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

declaration. (See UMF No. 11; AoE, Rapozo Decl., ¶ 11.) [5] Rule 3.1350(d)(3) provides that “[c]itation to evidence in support of each material fact must

include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.”

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

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). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rosendin in Department 8B

managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.