DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG01900·fresno·Probate·Personal Injury
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Williams v. Welbe Health Sequoia Pace et al.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 23, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTia Williams
DefendantHongshik Han, M.D.

Attorneys

Hongshik Han, M.D.for Defendant
Tia Williamsfor Plaintiff

Ruling

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: Williams v. Welbe Health Sequoia Pace et al. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01900

Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: By Defendant Hongshik Han, M.D. for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling:

To continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to September 23, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502. Defendant Hongshik Han, M.D. is to file the separate statement of material facts referenced in his moving papers by 5 p.m. Friday September 11, 2026.

Explanation:

On March 20, 2026, defendant Hongshik Han, M.D. (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”).

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1), states “The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” Defendant never filed a separate statement of material facts. However, both Defendant’s moving papers and plaintiff Tia Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) opposition reference Defendant’s separate statement of material facts. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is continued to September 23, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. and Defendant is ordered to file the separate statement of material facts referenced by his moving papers and Plaintiff’s opposition by Friday September 11, 2026.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 8-31-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

4

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