CHRIS SCHROEDER VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion and Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, December 30, 2025, Line 7, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication. (Part 1 of 2 for purposes of entry of Tentative Ruling)

The motion for summary judgment is granted. "A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(1).) "The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Id., Sec. 437c, subd. (c).)

The moving party must make an initial showing, based upon affirmative evidence, that summary judgment must be granted. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the movant meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists. The court liberally construes the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolves doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039.) The moving party bears the burden of persuasion "from the commencement to conclusion" to show "that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Ibid.)

Based on review of the entire motion, including the separate statement and supporting evidence, the court concludes that the City and the individual defendants are entitled to judgment. Assuming Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, the City has offered evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and Plaintiff has not provided evidence to create a triable issue of fact that age discrimination, disability discrimination, or retaliation for protected activity was afoot. The City provides evidence that it accommodated Plaintiff's disability and engaged in the interactive process to accommodate Plaintiff's disability. Plaintiff failed to submit a claim to the City, as required to bring suit against it for a violation of Labor Code, Sec. 1102.5. The City has demonstrated there is no triable issue of fact as to any claim against any individual defendant.

(Tentative Ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) =(301/CVA) | |