John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC

Trial is currently scheduled for August 17, 2026.

Pertinent to the instant motion, Plaintiffs filed a third amendment to the Complaint identifying Gurpreet Singh Randhawa (“Dr. Singh”) as Doe 3. After being served with the Summons and Complaint, Dr. Singh met and conferred as to his being added to the action via Doe amendment. The parties did not reach an agreement, and Dr. Singh filed a motion to quash service on January 16, 2026. That motion was heard on shortened time on April 22, 2026, and was denied by the assigned Civil Home Court Department (the Honorable Julie G. Yap/Dept. 8D). In denying the motion, Judge Yap ordered Dr. Singh to file and serve a responsive pleading within 10 days. (Minutes, Apr. 22, 2026.)

Dr. Singh filed and served a demurrer and motion to strike on May 1, 2026. The two matters were scheduled for hearing on the first available hearing dates in Department 8D – September 21, 2026 and October 21, 2026. Also on May 1, 2026, Dr. Singh filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication on November 16, 2026, the first date Department 8D had available for such a motion. Each of these hearing dates are after the current trial date.

Accordingly, Defendants move to continue the trial and related dates so that, inter alia, Dr. Singh’s pending motions can be heard and decided before trial. Defendants argue that good cause to continue the August 17, 2026 “clearly exists” since “Dr. Singh is considered a new party[,]” and he would “experience extreme prejudice should trial proceed without an opportunity to conduct discovery and without an opportunity to have his pending Motions heard on their merits prior to the start of trial.” (Mot. 9:9-22.) Defendants request a new trial date of December 16, 2026, or a date thereafter.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, rejoining that Dr. Singh is the President and owner of all Defendants; thus, “although ‘Doe’d in’ eight months ago, in reality he has been involved and kept up to date regarding the case all along.” (Opp’n 4:1-3.) Plaintiffs further argue that any trial continuance should be granted on certain conditions, including non-mutual discovery cut-off dates, certain orders concerning discovery disputes that are pending in the case’s Civil Home Court Department; and deadlines for exchanging motions in limine. (Id. at 7:1-8:12.)

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.)

“Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: [¶] (5) The addition of a new party if: The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial [; or] (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “In ruling on a motion . . . for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination[,]” which may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause for the continuance. Dr. Singh was recently added as a party by Doe amendment and has three motions pending with hearing dates occurring after the current trial date. The case is not currently at issue as to him. Further, Dr. Singh would suffer prejudice if a continuance were not granted, and there are not alternative means available to address Dr. Singh’s proffered reasons for a continuance.

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion for a trial continuance is granted. The August 17, 2026 trial date is VACATED. The case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of trial and mandatory settlement conference (“MSC”) dates.

All counsel shall confer and agree upon three (3) trial and three (3) MSC dates. Available dates can be obtained on the Court’s web site at https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCourtApplications/Civil/TrialSettingProcess/. Defendants shall promptly utilize the online submission form on the above website to submit the parties’ preferred dates to the Court. The Court will review the submitted dates and from those, select one MSC and one trial date. The Court will provide email confirmation of the confirmed dates to the party that submitted the online form.

If the parties have not agreed on dates and/or otherwise fail to submit their agreed upon dates to the Court on or before the 60th day after the date of the Court’s referral order, court staff shall assign MSC and trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Civil Home Court Department.

Upon receiving email confirmation from the Court confirming the calendared MSC and trial dates, Defendants shall file and serve notice of such dates, times, and departments to all parties. The Court will provide notice to the parties only in the instance where the Court has selected dates due to the failure of the parties to submit their preferred dates in a timely manner.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

The Court notes that a continuance does not operate to reopen discovery that has already closed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b).) Absent a stipulation, such a request must be made via a separate noticed motion and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.050(a) and 2024.060.) Non-expert discovery closed 30 days before the initial date set for trial, which has already passed.

All other statutory deadlines, including expert discovery, shall be governed by the new trial date.

The Court declines to condition its order granting Defendants’ motion with any of the conditions requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may seek any discovery sanctions they deem appropriate in the assigned Civil Home Court Department, and the judge assigned to conduct trial will decide the scheduling of pre-trial filings such as motions in limine.

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

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial 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. ***