Not Stated

matter. But he needs a teaching credential and he does not have one. Even if he has great subject matter expertise, he still lacks a necessary credential and thus is not qualified for the position (within the meaning of the law). Plaintiff suggests that this could be taken care of in the onboarding modules. The court is aware of no law that suggests that onboarding can satisfy the credentialing requirement. In short, plaintiff cannot show that he has a credential or that the law does not require it. The court has given him ample opportunity to so demonstrate, but he has not. He suggests that he has a credential from Virginia. The court does not believe that would be sufficient, but he presents no evidence of that either, and apparently he is not listed as credentialed in Virginia. The demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The court notes that plaintiff has attached various accolades and achievements to his brief. The court has reviewed them, but none is a teaching credential. The second cause of action fails for the same reason. It also fails because there is no allegation that he exhausted his administrative remedies (which is also true of the first cause of action). Accordingly, the demurrer to that cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is for violation of Education Code section 44932. It also fails because it deals with the dismissal of a permanent employee, and he is not in that category. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The fourth cause of action is for defamation. Plaintiff initially pled that he was defamed because defendant stated that he was "not selected." He now states that defendants said he was "not qualified." But both statements are true. He was in fact not selected, and he is in fact not qualified because he does not meet the qualifications for the job. Truth is a defense to defamation. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The fifth cause of action is for conspiracy. It is not a cause of action. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (It is not really clear whether plaintiff is suing for conspiracy in the SAC.)

Finally, the sixth cause of action goes to the Unruh Act. But a school is not a business establishment within that Act. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. In short, the entire complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants will present an Order of Dismissal, and the court will set a non-appearance date to be sure that the order is signed. The order is appealable (once signed), and if plaintiff believes that this court was in error, his remedy lies with the Court of Appeal.

compel responses. The motion is DENIED. It was filed before the time to respond had expired and is therefore premature. Moreover, defendant contends that timely responses were in fact served.

The court also has two ex parte matters. The first is a request for leave to record the lis pendens. The second is for a TRO. The underlying allegations are that plaintiff owned or owns real property. Defendants allegedly caused fraudulent debts to be recorded against the property, and now those lenders are seeking to foreclose. The questions the court has are these. With regard to the TRO, what is the timeline? A notice of default has been issued, but the court does not know when any foreclosure sale might occur.

The court is more concerned if the sale is tomorrow than if it is not going to occur for four months. If it is tomorrow, then emergency relief might be needed; if it is in four months, then this can await a preliminary injunction hearing. The court will inquire. That said, the court would be inclined to be sure that no sale occurs between now and the time the parties may be heard.

As to the lis pendens, the matter is presently set for December 17, 2026. The court needs to better understand why there are exigent circumstances such that the matter cannot be heard on that date. If it is the feared sale, the court would be inclined to learn about the proposed sale date. An alternative might be to advance the hearing date now on calendar.

Case Number: 26SMCP00315 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I The court does not believe that the hearing can go forward due to service issues. The court is also concerned that the case might be related to another case, which is the low numbered case. Until that is resolved, this court will not rule in the instant matter.

Case Number: 26SMCV00389 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I The application is DENIED for lack of exigency. It may be refiled as a motion or, if appropriate, by way of application and proposed order. The court will not hear argument on this application today.

Case Number: 26SMCV01748 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I The court ruled on this matter on August 21, 2026. The court's thinking has not changed and it will not hear argument. The application is DENIED.

Case Number: SC126806 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: I The application to advance the hearing date on the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. While the court understands that these parties would rather not prepare for trial, they have been in the case since October 17, 2024. The theory of the MJOP is statute of limitations. And it is a pleading motion--not a summary judgment motion. While the court appreciates that they would rather not go to trial if their theory is correct, right now everyone is scrambling to get ready for the trial. The moving parties do not explain why a theory that was supposedly obvious to them well over 18 months before they filed their motion must be advanced now. The court just does not see the exigent circumstances. The court notes that even if the court could