Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Mandatory Appearance of all parties required.

At the time the motion was filed, the trial was scheduled for April 20, 2026. On March 17, 2026, the Presiding Judge granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial. Trial is now set for October 20, 2026.

Plaintiff filed a limited opposition stating, in part:

As of the filing of this Limited Opposition, Plaintiff, Degui Goodman (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant American Honda Motor Co, Inc. (“Defendant”; collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to continue the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”), the Trial date, and all related deadlines 150-180 days, or a time thereafter convenient to the Court. Contemporaneously with this Limited Opposition, the Parties are filing a Joint Stipulation requesting the relief on or, to allow further time for the Parties to complete critical discovery that needs to be completed prior to Plaintiff opposing Defendant’s motion summary adjudication, . . . Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication be continued pursuant to the Joint Stipulation that the Parties filed contemporaneously herewith.

(Limited Opposition, 1:1-22.)

Plaintiff has also requested a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). (See Declaration of Timothy Lupinek.)

Although Plaintiff’s limited opposition references a Joint Stipulation, no such stipulation was filed. On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue trial dates and all related deadlines. The ex parte application included the Joint Stipulation with the parties agreeing to a Friday, September 4, 2026, hearing date on the motion for summary judgment. There has been no ex parte application to continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The Court also notes that this Department does not hold hearings on Fridays.

The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss proposed hearing dates for the motion for summary adjudication.

NOTICE:

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 54

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 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/courtreporters/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. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 54

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.