Motion for Summary Adjudication; Motion for Summary Judgment
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
Case: Cazares v. County of Yolo Case No. CV2024-2036 Hearing Date: July 30, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.
The Court does not consider plaintiff Jennifer Cazares’ evidentiary objections made in their responsive separate statement because these objections were not “served and filed separately from the other papers...in opposition to the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).)
Defendant County of Yolo’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) While the Court takes judicial notice of nos. 1-3, no. 4 is not an accurate statement and therefore, the Court declines to take judicial notice of this fact. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c) & (h).)
Plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s exhibits nos. 2 and 3 are OVERRULED. As to no. 1, the Court declines to rule on this evidentiary objection because the evidence objected to is not relevant to the disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)
Defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s evidence nos. 8-12, 18, and 20-21 are OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on the remaining evidentiary objections because the evidence objected to is not relevant to the disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)
Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to issue no. 1 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “If...the motion for summary judgment relies in whole or in part on a showing of nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge, the employer satisfies its burden as moving party if it presents evidence of such nondiscriminatory reasons that would permit a trier of fact to find, more likely than not, that they were the basis for the termination.” (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court finds that defendant has presented evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination. (Ibid.; UMF 3-4, 48-51.) Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact, demonstrating that intentional discrimination or retaliation occurred. (See Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1187, 1194 & 1196; see also Bell v. City of Torrance (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 189, 194-195; Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1314; UMF 3, 8, 49, 51.)
Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to issue no. 2 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “There are three elements to a failure to accommodate action: (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of the position); and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability.” (Hernandez, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1193-1194, internal quotation marks omitted.) Defendant has established it provided plaintiff with reasonable accommodations. (Ibid.; UMF 52, 59, 61.) Based on plaintiff’s discovery responses, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to this issue. (Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 707-708; UMF 52.)
2 of 7
Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to issue no. 3 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “The ‘interactive process’ required by the FEHA is an informal process with the employee or the employee’s representative, to attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation that will enable the employee to perform the job effectively....Ritualized discussions are not necessarily required.” (Hernandez, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1196-1197, citing Wilson v. County of Orange, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 1195, internal quotation marks omitted.) Defendant has established that it engaged in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations for plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to this issue. (Hernandez, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1196-1197; UMF 53-61.)
Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The trial jury set for August 31, 2026, and the trial readiness conference set for August 10, 2026, are VACATED.
If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
3 of 7