DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620767·sf·Civil·Summary Judgment
Hearing todayDENIED

TRAVIS FIELDS VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Defendant'S Motion For Summary Judgment Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1008(A); Alternative Non-Ex Parte Suggestion That The Court Consider Initiating Reconsideration In Its Own Motion Under Le Francois V. Goel

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Reconsideration rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTRAVIS FIELDS
DefendantCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24620767 - August 27, 2026 Hearing date: August 27, 2026 Case number: CGC24620767 Case title: TRAVIS FIELDS VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT Case Number: | | CGC24620767 | Case Title: | | TRAVIS FIELDS VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT | Court Date: | | 2026-08-27 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Defendant'S Motion For Summary Judgment Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1008(A); Alternative Non-Ex Parte Suggestion That The Court Consider Initiating Reconsideration In Its Own Motion Under Le Francois V.

Goel | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for August 27, 2026, line 3. PLAINTIFF TRAVIS FIELDS' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(A); Alternative Non-Ex Parte Suggestion that the Court Consider Initiating Reconsideration in its Own Motion Under Le Francois V. Goel.

Plaintiff Travis Fields's motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco is denied. To the extent Plaintiff relies upon Vehicle Code section 22655.5 as new authority, he does not state why this authority was not previously available to him. Plaintiff's motion largely relies on arguments and authorities that were already considered by the court. The requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008, are not met here, and the court declines to exercise its sua sponte discretion to reconsider its prior orders.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. If no party contests the tentative ruling, it will be adopted verbatim in a minute order.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share