ROBERT BENYAMIN MALAK ISMAIL VS. SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23610750 - October 15, 2025 Hearing date: October 15, 2025 Case number: CGC23610750 Case title: ROBERT BENYAMIN MALAK ISMAIL VS. SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23610750 | Case Title: | | ROBERT BENYAMIN MALAK ISMAIL VS. SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-15 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, October 15, 2025, Line 7.

DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff's opposition establishes that he needs additional discovery to oppose. (See Code Civ. Proc., section 437c, subd. (h).) The court continues the motion for hearing to January 7, 2026 in Department 301. Plaintiff may file a new opposition brief within the statutory time period before the continued hearing date.

Plaintiff in his opposition, and defendant in its reply, shall address whether Defendant's moving papers-which rely not on factually devoid discovery responses but on Plaintiff's deposition testimony-are sufficient to carry its burden of production. In Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, the court held that evidence of the plaintiff's deposition testimony that "he did not recall the defendant's name and did not recall whether he worked with any product bearing the defendant's name," without more, did not meet "[the] defendant's initial burden of producing evidence that [the] plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence [the] defendant was a cause of [the] plaintiff's injuries, so that the burden shifts to [the] plaintiff to show a triable issue of fact exists as to causation." (Id., at p. 1435.) "That Weber was unable to recall whether he worked around [defendant's] product over 40 years ago suggests only that plaintiffs will not be able to prove their case with Weber's deposition testimony." (Id., at p. 1439.)

The defendant did not provide evidence that the plaintiffs had "failed to provide meaningful responses to comprehensive interrogatories designed to elicit all the evidence plaintiffs had to support their contention of liability." (Id. at p. 1442.)

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.