LATISH vs MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, et al.

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by McDonald's Corporation in Department 8C

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 Department 8C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380 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 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by McDonald's Corporation in Department 8C

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

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant McDonald’s Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiff in pro per Kiayetta Beverly Latish (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED but is DROPPED for the reasons stated below.

First, the proof of service states that the moving papers were served on Plaintiff via email only. Electronic service on an unrepresented party is only permitted if the unrepresented party has consented to receive such service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c).) There is no evidence that Plaintiff has manifested consent to receive electronic service. Thus, there is no evidence of valid service of the moving papers on Plaintiff.

Second, a motion for summary judgment “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3).) Where the moving party notices its motion “for hearing within 30 days of the trial date without first obtaining a determination of good cause from the trial court,” then “[u]nless and until the trial court [finds] good cause, the notice of hearing [is] invalid.” (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.)

Here, trial in this matter is currently set for July 28, 2026. This trial date was scheduled on July 31, 2025. Defendant filed this motion on April 1, 2026. Thus, at the time Defendant noticed the present motion for summary judgment for hearing on July 20, 2026, the July 28, 2026 trial date was already scheduled, meaning the motion for summary judgment was noticed for hearing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by McDonald's Corporation in Department 8C

within 30 days of the trial date. Defendant did not obtain a determination of good cause before noticing this motion, and the Court has not subsequently made such a determination, so the notice of motion is invalid. (See Robinson, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DROPPED.