Not Stated

declaration. But that case is not this case. In that case, critically, it was the moving party that sought the deposition of the opposing party's expert. Why is that important? Because having the moving party's expert attempt to undermine the opposing party's expert would most likely only result in the court concluding that there is a triable issue of fact as to the dueling experts. The only way to attack the opposition expert would be to undermine that expert through a deposition. Here, in contrast, plaintiff has no such burden.

The plaintiff can attempt to so undermine the defense expert that the court will simply strike the declaration. But that seems an odd choice and a steep path. The more obvious route is for plaintiff to submit a declaration that rebuts defendants' expert. It could be possible that no such declaration is possible without deposing defendants' expert; but the court has seen no showing of that here.

The court also notes that plaintiff cites to and relies on a Superior Court opinion out of Orange County. Such decisions are not citable authority and the court has disregarded that part of the application. Counsel ought to know better than that.

The bottom line is that the motion is CONTINUED to the hearing date. The court will move the hearing date a short time to accommodate the scheduling conflict. In the opposition, plaintiff can make the 473c(h) showing by a specific discussion of the evidence that plaintiff wants to obtain, how it is expected to be used to defeat the motion, and an explanation as to why it was not timely obtained (that is, plaintiff's diligence). If that showing is adequately made, the court will continue the MSJ to allow the discovery.

original trial date was set at a CMC held on December 16, 2024. The court on its own motion moved the trial a bit but informed the parties that if the new date did not work, they were to inform the court promptly, and the court has heard no request to move the trial for that reason.

The court has received no FSC materials. The court assumes that is because the case settled, which is an excellent reason not to file FSC materials. If that is not the case, the court will need to have a discussion with counsel. In either case, there will be no trial next week, and the trial date is VACATED.

But as it turns out, the court is presently engaged in a jury trial which will extend for all of next week and the week after. Therefore, as it turns out, this court would have had to trail or continue the instant case. Therefore, the court will either set an OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) or a TSC.

Case Number: 24SMCV03326 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I This matter is here for an FSC. However, there was an earlier application to continue the trial. The reason was that lead trial counsel is also lead trial counsel in another matter set for trial in this department scheduled to start just before this case such that this case would not likely go forward.

The court continued the application to continue the trial to today, but told counsel that it did not expect the parties to work toward the FSC given the strong likelihood that the court would be in trial and that if it turned out that the case could go forward, the court would work with the parties regarding the FSC so as to understand that they were given that instruction. The other case is going forward and therefore it does appear that a continuance will be necessary. The court will therefore discuss the matter with the parties and most likely schedule a TSC. The court will also inquire as to the status of the case. Prior defense counsel withdrew, which would mean that the entity has a problem. There is also an individual defendant, however, who is entitled to appear without counsel.

Case Number: 25SMCV03483 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I This is a demurrer. Plaintiff sues defendant under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, contending that he was denied a teaching job for a discriminatory reason. Defendants contend that the action fails because he is not qualified for the teaching position because he is not credentialed. In prior rounds, plaintiff contended that the fact that he is not listed on the California website as having a credential is not dispositive.

To make a long story short, the court has ordered that plaintiff in this iteration either: (1) attach his credential or (2) explain why it is that he has a credential but cannot attach it; or (3) explain why it is that a credential is not in fact needed. Defendant again demurs, alleging that plaintiff has not and cannot allege that he was qualified for the position consistent with facts of which the court may take judicial notice.

The court notes that one of the oppositions seems to be to another case in that it goes to unpled claims. The court disregards that opposition and believes that the other opposition is the one plaintiff meant to file. (For example, plaintiff's opposition goes to breach of contract--a cause of action unpled.)

The court notes that the second amended complaint (and the first amended complaint, for that matter) are not in proper form. The SAC is a combination abbreviated complaint and brief. The FAC is also an abbreviated complaint. The court has done the best it can to attempt to understand the causes of action now being asserted.

The first cause of action is for age discrimination. One of the requirements for a prima facie case is that plaintiff is qualified for the job. (Abed v. Western Dental Services, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 726.) Here, the job is to be a teacher in a public school. In California, the "governing board of a school district shall employ for positions requiring certification qualifications, only persons who possess the qualifications for those positions prescribed by law." (Ed. Code sec. 44830.)

Defendants' request for judicial notice, which is granted, demonstrates that plaintiff is not listed as credentialed on the official state website. Plaintiff argues that he has many qualifications to teach the course he seeks to teach. And that may be, as a practical