MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al.

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Defendants Consumnes Corporation, West Palms Communication, Inc. dba West Palm Events Management (“Moving Defendants”) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 23, 2026. Moving Defendants request the Court continue trial to December 7, 2026. Defendant West Coast Equine Foundation (“WCEF”) joins the motion. Plaintiff Ricardo Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)

Moving Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the motion because they filed a motion for summary judgment on March 2, 2026 but were unable to obtain a hearing date until July 20, 2026. Moving Defendant cites to various cases as authority that a court may not refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment due to the Court’s calendar or local rules and practices. Here, however, it was Moving Defendant’s failure to pursue alternative remedies for

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

obtaining a timely hearing date, not the Court’s calendar, that prevented Moving Defendant from obtaining a timely hearing. Although Moving Defendant may have been unable to obtain a timely hearing date through the Court’s reservation system, Moving Defendant could have filed an ex parte application to specially set or advance the hearing date. Moving Defendant’s failure to pursue these alternative remedies is grounds for denying a request for continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(4).)

Moreover, notice of a motion for summary judgment that references an untimely hearing is invalid. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.) Here, Moving Defendant’s motion gives notice of an untimely hearing on July 20, 2026 and was therefore invalid. As Moving Defendants did not file and serve a valid notice of motion, Moving Defendants failed to file a timely motion for summary judgment.

Moving Defendants also argue a continuance is necessary to permit the parties to complete discovery. Moving Defendants indicate there have been delays in attempting to obtain police records related to the investigation of the alleged criminal activity that gives rise to this action. Moving Defendants also indicate there will be further delays in attempting to depose Plaintiff and conduct a medical examination because Plaintiff has relocated to Mexico. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Moving Defendants unreasonably delayed until February 2026 to conduct discovery and indicates that the Plaintiff’s deposition is scheduled for April 14, 2026 and will therefore be completed before trial without the need for a continuance.

The Court is not persuaded the motion should be denied based solely on Moving Defendant’s lack of diligence. Although Moving Defendants may not have propounded discovery to Plaintiff until February 2026, the evidence indicates Moving Defendants commenced discovery as to third-party records in October 2025, third-party witnesses in December 2025, and that Moving Defendants acted with sufficient diligence to file a motion for summary judgment by March 2, 2026. The record indicates there is a pending motion to compel scheduled to be heard on May 20, 2026.

Further, there are unresolved discovery issues regarding Plaintiff’s examination that could potentially result in further discovery motions. Finally, while Plaintiff conclusively states a continuance would cause prejudice, Plaintiff has not provided any specific factual details regarding circumstances particular to this case to support that conclusion.

The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the foregoing and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. The May 19, 2026 MSC and June 23, 2026 trial dates are VACATED. The parties failed to comply with Local Rule 2.11, which requires all parties to provide their availability for trial when a motion to continue trial is pending, regardless of whether the motion is opposed. Moving Defendants propose December 7, 2026 as a new trial date. No party

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

provided evidence of a conflict with the proposed date. Accordingly, trial is set for December 7, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for November 3, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 450.

All trial related and discovery deadlines shall be governed by the new trial date. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.