STRANDBOGE vs CITRUS GRILLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC.

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME STRANDBOGE vs MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CITRUS GRILLE CVRI2303356 COUNSEL FOR JENNIFER MANAGEMENT STRANDBOGE COMPANY, LLC. Tentative Ruling:

The motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. Counsel is relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order being served upon client. If the proof of service is not filed, counsel will remain counsel of record for all purposes related to this action.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR SUMMARY DOE vs RIVERSIDE JUDGMENT OR IN THE CVRI2400625 UNIFIED SCHOOL ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY DISTRICT ADJUDICATION ON 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling:

“[I]n order to avert summary judgment the plaintiff must produce substantial responsive evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact on the merits of the defendant’s showing. [Citations.] For this purpose, responsive evidence that gives rise to no more than mere speculation cannot be regarded as substantial, and is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163.)

“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (C.C.P. § 437c(h).)

The purpose of the declarations required by § 437c(h) is to inform the Court of outstanding discovery necessary to resist the summary judgment motion: “To be entitled to a continuance, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment must show that its proposed discovery would have led to facts essential to justify opposition.” (Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307, 325-326.) Accordingly, the opposing party’s declaration in support of a motion to continue the hearing should show the