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.

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

the statute for this” referring to a reply separate statement].) Bagatelos’s recourse was to file separate written objections consistent with Rule 3.1354 or raise arguments in its reply brief.

These procedural issues needlessly complicated the Court’s review.

Counsel are expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review, including ensuring that the materials are well formatted and accurate and procedurally proper.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

CalSTRS objects to UMF Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25. (CalSTRS’s Evid. Objections.) CalSTRS’s objections are ruled on as follows: 1. SUSTAINED – UMF No. 22 is only supported by a citation to DPR GP’s Second Amended Cross Complaint, which is not evidence. Accordingly, the Court disregards UMF No. 22.

2. OVERRULED – the excerpts provided establish Ms. Azevedo’s role and familiarity with the Project. Moreover, the same page indicates that the discussion regarding the Office of the State Fire Marshall (“OSFM”) clearly indicates that it is her understanding. (See CoE, Exh. 11, p. 57.)

3. OVERRULED – While the specifically cited material is a question, which is ordinarily not admissible as evidence, in context, the question reflects a summary of the deponent’s prior answers – that Ridge was aware that DPR was sending a form to its subcontractors to get cost information for the delays. The Court declines to sustain this objection and render UMF No. 24 unsupported on the basis of what essentially amounts to a typographical error. (The cite could have instead started at line 1 or line 7, as opposed to 17, and provided that context.)

4. OVERRULED – While the questions incorporate the ultimate issues of whether there was a fraud or conspiracy, Ms. Azevedo’s answers – the actual evidence – demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding any fraudulent billing practices, overbilling, or related conspiracy.

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-

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

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]” and “[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.” (11-1-24 Minute Order.) On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), adding additional allegations regarding the Subcontractor Defendants.

Bagatelos 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 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

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

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 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 Issue 1, Bagatelos argues that CalSTRS cannot establish fraud because (a) Bagatelos did not make knowingly false representations on its subcontractor applications for payment and no mark ups were applied; (b) CalSTRS cannot establish justifiable reliance on the applications

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

for payment; (c) CalSTRS cannot establish a knowingly false representation with respect to the change orders because Bagatelos never promised that the work would be performed by a particular date and, even if it did, a fraud claim does not lie for a promise of future conduct; and (d) regarding allegations concerning the value of stored materials, CalSTRS cannot establish a knowingly false representation or reliance because the line for the value of stored materials was not paid. (Mot., pp. 6:9-19:20.) Regarding Issue 2, Bagatelos contends that CalSTRS’s conspiracy claim must fail because CalSTRS has no evidence to establish the formation and operation of a conspiracy. (Id., pp. 19:19-20:19.)

CalSTRS opposes, arguing that Bagatelos has failed to meet its burden of establishing that there are no triable issues of fact as to any claim and that it is entitled to summary judgment/adjudication. CalSTRS further argues that it has raised disputes of material fact. (See generally, Opp.)

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

Bagatelos’s Evidentiary Burden

“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.) Bagatelos’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

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

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 an admission that it does not have 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].)

Here, Bagatelos relies on the following UMF Nos. and corresponding discovery responses: UMF Nos. 29 and 30 [1] (CoE, Exh. 12, CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, 37, 43, 44, 50, 51, 57, 58, 64, 65, 71, 72, 78, 79, 85, 86, 92, 93, 99, 100, 106, 107, 122, 123, 138, 139); and UMF Nos. 61-62 (CoE, Exh. 12, CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 184 and 185). The SROG responses cited in UMF No. 29 ask CalSTRS to state all facts upon which CalSTRS bases its allegation that a particular application for payment was false and fraudulent. (CoE, Exh. 12, CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57, 64, 71, 78, 85, 92, 99, 106, 122, 138.)

CalSTRS consistently[2] identifies the following facts: (1) the contracts required work to be performed during regular hours in accordance with the schedule and in sufficient force to achieve the completion deadline; (2) that the contracts do not entitle DPR GP to any additional costs as a result of conditions or events that do not entitle DPR GP to a change order, for costs associated with contractor, subcontractor, or supplier delay, lack of coordination or inefficiencies (except as expressly allowed), or any additional work needed to achieve a complete, usable and functional project, or any costs not within the subcontractor’s firm fixed price; (3) schedule acceleration for Bagatelos was not included in DPR GP’s bid package; and (4) Bagatelos did not “keep the schedule” or accelerate project completion, which was the stated reason for performing the work. (Id., CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 64, 71, 78, 85, 92, 99, 106, 122, 138.)

The responses referenced in UMF No. 30 are similar. (Id., CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 72, 79, 86, 93, 100, 107, 123, 139.) Regarding Bagatelos’s conspiracy contention interrogatories, CalSTRS’s responses largely restate CalSTRS’s allegations. Specifically, CalSTRS alleges that Bagatelos submitted payment applications to DPR GP representing that it earned and was entitled to payment, but Bagatelos failed to accelerate the schedule. CalSTRS also asserts other allegations regarding the reported completion percentages and the value of materials stored offsite. (Id., CalSTRS’s Responses to SROG Nos. 184-185.)

The Court is not persuaded that these responses are factually devoid or that they constitute admissions that CalSTRS has no evidence to support its claims.

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

In the instant motion, Bagatelos fundamentally asks the wrong question: whether Bagatelos actually did the work identified in its applications for payment. Bagatelos dedicates pages of its opening brief to specifying the particular application and affirming that it actually incurred the hours claimed, concluding that the representations cannot be fraudulent because the work was performed. (See Mot., pp. 7:3-12:27; UMF Nos. 31-64.) However, the pertinent issue – as framed by CalSTRS’s operative complaint and consistent with CalSTRS’s discovery responses summarized above – is whether Bagatelos performed that work and incurred those costs with the intent to “accelerate” to achieve a particular substantial completion deadline[3] or otherwise submitted applications for payment that Bagatelos was not entitled to.

This is also reflected in CalSTRS’s disputes of UMF Nos. 12, 31-32, 38, 40-42, 44-47, and 49-56 where CalSTRS emphasizes that the costs were not incurred for schedule acceleration because the substantial completion deadline was not achieved. (See CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt.)

Bagatelos appears to at least implicitly recognize this distinction. While it contends that it was entitled to payment under the contracts and that CalSTRS’s arguments to the contrary are without merit, it does not ask the Court to adjudicate whose interpretation of the contract is correct. Rather, it relies on its assertion that it submitted its payment applications and change orders in “good faith.” (See Mot., pp. 7:1, 14:25-26, 18:6-10; Powell Decl., ¶¶ 3-19; Papagna Decl., ¶¶ 9-10, Luciani Decl., ¶ 2.)

Discovery has not yet closed.[4] Moreover, it is conceivable that, through examination[5] of Bagatelos’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 Bagatelos’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

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, and justifiable reliance. But Bagatelos bears the burden on this motion and has failed to demonstrate – with citation to relevant evidence – that CalSTRS does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence necessary to support its claims. Bagatelos has not done so. Accordingly, Bagatelos’s motion must be denied.

Disputes of Fact

Even if Bagatelos had met its initial burden, CalSTRS has raised at least one dispute of material fact that precludes the Court from granting the motion.

Bagatelos relies on UMF Nos. 1-69 in support of Issue 1. (Sep. Stmt.) While the Separate Statement does not so indicate, it appears that Bagatelos relies on the same 69 undisputed facts in support of Issue 2.

CalSTRS purports to dispute the following UMF Nos.: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15-48, 50-58, 61-63, 65, and 69.[6] CalSTRS also presents numerous Additional Material Facts (“AMF”) in support of these disputes and AMF Nos. 70 through 83.

The Court acknowledges that many of these disputes are not true disputes insofar as they simply provide additional contractual language, are little more than semantic disputes, or are not supported by the evidence cited. However, 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.)

As discussed above, CalSTRS disputes UMF Nos. 31-32, 38, 40-42, 44-47, and 49-56, each of which asserts that Bagatelos actually incurred the dollar amount sought in the respective pay application because Bagatelos incurred a particular number of hours, which supported by Daily Extra Work Tags. (See Sep. Stmt.) In CalSTRS’s disputes, CalSTRS emphasizes that the costs were not incurred for schedule acceleration because the work was not accelerated as required by the applicable schedule and substantial completion deadline was not achieved. (See CalSTRS’s Sep.

Stmt.) By way of example, regarding UMF No. 31, CalSTRS relies on several discovery responses from Bagatelos admitting that the work was not timely completed and describing the delays that impacted Bagatelos’s work and Project completion. (See CaSTRS’s Sep. Stmt, UMF No. 31; Opposition Appendix of Evidence (“OAoE”), Exhs. 6 [RFA Nos. 56, 60], 7 [SROG Nos. 7, 42], 8 [FROG No. 17.1].)

While somewhat superficial, CalSTRS also disputes UMF No.

65. UMF No. 65 provides that “Bagatelos January 2024 Subcontractor Payment Application was for the amount of $18,972.00.” CalSTRS disputes, contending that the payment application was “for the amount of

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

$18,974.82.” (CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt, UMF No. 65.) Both Parties cite Exhibit 36 to the CoE, which clearly states that the payment application was for $18,974.82. (CoE, Exh. 36.)

***

As the Court explained in the concurrent ruling on Rosendin’s motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication, this is not a breach of contract action against the subcontractors. The ultimate issue is not which Parties’ interpretation of the contracts is correct or whether the subcontractors were actually entitled to seek the payments, but whether the subcontractors, including Bagatelos, made knowingly false statements when it represented that it would accelerate work to achieve particular deadlines and that it was entitled to payment for work performed.

Because the above UMF Nos., and therefore CaSTRS’s disputes, are incorporated into both issues presented for adjudication, Bagatelos’s motion must fail.

DISPOSITION

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

Having so ruled, the Court need not reach the Parties remaining arguments.[7]

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

[1] The Court acknowledges that UMF Nos. 29 and 30 claim that “CalSTRS provided an identical

response.” (UMF Nos. 29 and 30.) CalSTRS’s disputes, contending that the responses are not identical. (CalSTRS’s Sep. Stmt, UMF No. 29 and 30.) [2] The Court notes that CalSTRS’s response to SROG Nos. 50 and 57 do not follow this pattern.

There, CalSTRS asserts that because the contracted work did not include the “2022-06-20 Schedule Update Costs” and subcontracted work had to be performed for the agreed firm fixed price, Bagatelos knew that CalSTRS did not agree to compensate for any “2022-06-20 Schedule Update Costs” incurred. (CoE, Exh. 12, CalSTRS’s Response to SROG Nos. 50, 57.) [3] Relatedly, CalSTRS asserts that Bagatelos’s representations when executing change orders

that it would accelerate work in exchange for additional payments were fraudulent. [4] 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

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

resolution before the anticipated Discovery Referee must be completed no later than September 11, 2026. (6-5-26 Minute Order.) [5] As CalSTRS has previously suggested to this Court, it intends to present its case through

witnesses from DPR and/or the subcontractors. [6] The Court sustained CalSTRS’s objection to the underlying evidence supporting UMF No. 22

and, therefore disregards it as unsupported. Accordingly, the Court declines to reach CalSTRS purported disputes. [7] To the extent Bagatelos attempts to carve out challenges to particular payment applications or

change orders in its argument, Bagatelos’s approach is inconsistent with the issues presented for adjudication, which generally address each cause of action. Even if the Court were to agree with Bagatelos as to a particular representation or a particular category of representations, it would not fully resolve the cause of action as a matter of law. (See CCP, § 437c(f)(1).) This is in contrast to the Sureties, which sought specific adjudication of alleged breaches of the Performance Bond as a distinct contract, despite being plead in the aggregate with alleged breaches of other contracts. It is not clear that the alleged misrepresentations could be separately adjudicated in the fraud and conspiracy claims, but, in any event, it is not possible given Bagatelos’s framing of the issues here.

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

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 for Summary Judgment Bagatelos in Department 8B

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 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.