RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al.

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.

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication 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***

Plaintiff in pro per Edward E. Ringgold’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary adjudication against Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodisc (“Defendant”) is DENIED.

The Court need not rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections, since they are directed to matters not material to the Court’s disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)

This action arises out of an employment dispute in which Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated by Defendant after he complained that his salary was being reduced due to his request to work remotely at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic due to a medical condition. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) contains 11 causes of action. The SAC also names Defendants Kirk G. Burgett, Lisa Burgett, and Thomas Lagormarsino (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) (collectively with Defendant, “Defendants”).

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f) 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 the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 8C

for damages, or an issue of duty.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f).)

“If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b), emphasis added.) Additionally, a separate statement in support of a motion for summary adjudication must separately identify “[e]ach cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion,” and “[e]ach supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.” (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(1)(A)-(B).) The separate statement must follow the two-column format illustrated in the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(h).)

Additionally, the papers in support of a motion for summary adjudication must be filed as separate documents. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(c).) A motion for summary adjudication must be supported by evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(c)(4); Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with these requirements. Plaintiff did not file his supporting papers as separate documents and did not submit any evidence. Plaintiff’s separate statement does not follow the two-column format. Additionally, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that he seeks summary adjudication of the following:

1. That Defendant Burgett Inc. dba PianoDisc cannot establish any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s suspension and termination, as alleged as an affirmative defense to the First, Second, Sixth, and Eighth Causes of Action;

2. That Defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses based on “failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” fail as a matter of law, where Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is verified and legally sufficient;

3. That Defendant’s affirmative defenses invoking workers’ compensation exclusivity, unclean hands, mitigation, and legitimate business reasons are unsupported by admissible evidence and fail as a matter of law; [and]

4. That Defendant’s Answer contains binding judicial admissions establishing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 8C

key elements of Plaintiff’s FEHA disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-accommodate claims, leaving no triable issue of material fact as to liability.

(Motion, p. 2:2-11, bold in original.)

None of these issue statements specifically identify the affirmative defenses on which Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication. These issue statements are far too vague and ambiguous to satisfy California Rules of Court rule 3.1350(b). Additionally, although the notice of motion contains the four issue statements above, Plaintiff’s separate statement contains only one issue heading that is not repeated verbatim from any of the four issues identified in the notice of motion, but instead states, “Defendant Burgett Inc. dba PianoDisc lacks a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s suspension and termination and cannot sustain its boilerplate affirmative defenses as a matter of law.” (Motion, p. 3:2-4.)

Failure to comply with the separate statement requirement, and the rules governing the format of the separate statement, may be grounds for denying the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1); Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.) Factors to consider when determining whether a motion should be denied for failing to comply with rule 3.1350 include whether the opposing party raises the defects in its opposition and whether the defects impair the opposing party’s ability to oppose the motion. (See Holt v. Brock (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 611, 619.) Here, Defendant has raised the procedural defects in its opposition. Additionally, the procedural defects are so comprehensive that they permeate the entire motion and thus impair Defendant’s ability to oppose the motion, as well as the Court’s ability to grant the requested relief.

Even if the defects are ignored and the merits of the motion are reached, there is no evidence or argument that would support a finding that Plaintiff has met his initial burden. The standard for a plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication against an affirmative defense is as follows:

When a plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on an affirmative defense, the court shall grant the motion “only if it completely disposes” of the defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1), italics added.) The plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that he or she is entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense, or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense. [Citations.]

(See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 899-900, italics in original.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 8C

Plaintiff’s motion fails to even identify the specific affirmative defenses at issue or to explain the elements of any such affirmative defenses. Nor does Plaintiff submit evidence that negates an element of any affirmative defense or make any showing that Defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support any affirmative defense. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that Defendant’s Answer contains judicial admissions establishing elements of Plaintiff’s causes of action, such a request is improper since granting it would not completely dispose of any of Defendant’s affirmative defenses or any of Plaintiff’s causes of action.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

Defendant is directed to prepare a formal order complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g) and California Rules of Court rule 3.1312.