MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al.

The moving party is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.05 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure for motions noticed in the Presiding Judge’s Department.

In pro per Plaintiff Barbara McIntyre’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 120-day discovery and trial setting schedule is DENIED as follows.

This is consolidated proceeding comprising a civil action and a writ proceeding. The Court, sua sponte, consolidated the matters on February 20, 2026. As stated in the Court’s February 20, 2026 Minute Order consolidating the matters:

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff Barbara McIntyre (“McIntyre”) commenced Case No. 24CV0133308 by filing a complaint for whistleblower retaliation following a complaint made by McIntyre regarding male security guard intrusions into the women’s bathroom and a separate complaint regarding an elevator with an expired permit that allegedly malfunctioned while being used by Plaintiff, causing injuries. (See Complaint, Case No. 24CV0133308.) The complaint alleges the elevator malfunction occurred on December 8, 2023. On February 10, 2026, McIntyre commenced Case No. 26WM000032 by filing a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the City of Sacramento to produce electronic command logs and CCTV footage for the elevator involved in the December 8, 2023 incident.

The operative pleading in the civil action is the Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on June 9, 2026 (“TAC”). The First Amended Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate (“FAP”) filed on February 27, 2026 is the operative pleading in the writ proceeding. Respondent Universal Protection Service, LP has demurred to the FAP, and the demurrer is scheduled for hearing on February 3, 2027. There are sixteen (16) law and motion matters scheduled for hearing in the consolidated proceedings between now and February 8, 2027, many of which

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

concern discovery.

Plaintiff now moves for an order granting a 120-day trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e). Plaintiff argues an expedited trial date is warranted because she continues to experience physical injuries, which she attributes to Defendants’ conduct and her placement into the City of Sacramento’s workers’ compensation system. Plaintiff also appears to base her motion on the status of outstanding discovery. She argues that “delay continues to coincide with new injuries and medical deterioration, and . . . the absence of key evidence affects [her] ability to prepare for trial.” (Pl.’s Not. of Mot. & Mot. 4:4-9; see also, generally, Mem. of P.&A. ISO Pl.’s Mot.)

Defendant City of Sacramento (“City”), joined by Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP, opposes the motion. The City argues:

Plaintiff’s motion never meaningfully addresses the question actually before the Court. Instead of demonstrating that the interests of justice require the extraordinary remedy of trial preference, Plaintiff devotes the overwhelming majority of her motion to discovery disputes, evidentiary complaints, workers’ compensation issues, medical treatment, and the merits of her underlying claims. Those issues are governed by separate statutory procedures and are not before the Court on this motion. The only issue presented is whether Plaintiff has established that the interests of justice require removing this case from the Court’s ordinary trial calendar and setting it for trial within 120 days. She has not.

(City’s Opp’n 2:5-12.)

The Court agrees.

There are various statutory grounds upon which a case may be entitled to priority in trial setting. The procedure for claiming preference varies with the ground asserted.

Plaintiff’s motion for preference is premised upon Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e), which provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” On its face, section 36(e) “commits motions for preference to the trial court’s discretion.” (Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 346.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the required showing. The pleadings have evolved through multiple amendments, and the pleadings are not yet settled, with the demurrer to Plaintiff’s TAC pending. Discovery is ongoing, and numerous motions remain pending though February 2027. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff was represented by counsel until April 2026, and while represented, Plaintiff never sought any form of accelerated scheduling – discovery, trial setting, or otherwise.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference is denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

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