ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al.

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING The motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of moving defendant Radford Johnson (“Defendant” or “Johnson”) is ruled on herein. The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a dispute between plaintiff ATI Restoration, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “ATI”) and its former employees.

Plaintiff alleges that, after it spent years and millions of dollars building its healthcare facility remediation business, codefendants Kevin Ritchie (“Ritchie”) and Dry Creek Construction Company (“Dry Creek”), recruited ATI employees who ran ATI’s healthcare remediation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

business, codefendants Pedro Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Johnson, to act as secrete business partners and covert advisers while still employed by ATI. (FAC, ¶¶ 1-5.) Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2024, Defendant and Hernandez asked the members of ATI’s field crew to meet them at Sky River Casino in Elk Grove, where a private conference room had been reserved for lunch. (Id. at ¶ 6.) At that meeting, Defendant and Hernandez announced their plans to join Dry Creek and “primed” the ATI attendees to leave Plaintiff and join Dry Creek. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Ritchie and former ATI employee Hintze were waiting at a nearby bar, were texted by Johnson, and then joined the meeting. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) At the meeting, crew members were given written offer letters from Dry Creek, which all the crew members accepted. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, 161.)

Plaintiff alleges that, in the days and weeks leading up to the February 5, 2024 meeting, Hernandez and Johnson “covertly served as Dry Creek’s inside consultants and business partners by meeting with Dry Creek several times” and by supplying it with detailed information of ATI’s operations, specialized equipment and supply needs, vehicle selection and set-up, and other information relevant to ATI’s operations. (FAC, ¶ 210.) Plaintiff further alleges Hernandez and Johnson orchestrated a surprise mass resignation of ATI’s hospital-remediation crew and actively and secretly gave improper assistance to prepare the Dry Creek offer letters and other documents, and to connect Dry Creek with ATI’s flagship client UC Davis Medical Center. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Hernandez and Defendant helped Dry Creek recruit other key employees from ATI, delivered to Dry Creek numerous ATI documents and files to accelerate Dry Creek’s newly formed healthcare division, and failed to bill ATI’s top client for numerous jobs and then deleted thousands of ATI documents needed to support such billing. (Ibid.)

ATI’s FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of duty of loyalty (against Defendant Johnson and Hernandez); (2) aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty (against Dry Creek and Ritchie); (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (against all defendants); (4) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (against Dry Creek and Ritchie); (5) violation of Penal Code section 502 (against all defendants); and (6) conspiracy (against all defendants).

Defendant now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of nine issues set forth in the Notice of Motion.

Plaintiff opposes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings; the Court cannot consider an unpled issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850 [“Aguilar”].) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v.

Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780- 781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 853- 855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.

App. 4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855 n.23; Addy v Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p); see generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. One of these differences is that California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Another difference is that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) provides in its entirety:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

Finally, before turning to the specific issues raised by this motion and the oppositions, the Court reminds the parties of the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (See, Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 (italics in original).) Moreover, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1).)

Discussion

Defendant’s Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication

“The language in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) makes it clear that a motion for summary adjudication cannot be considered by the court unless the party bringing the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

motion duly gives notice that summary adjudication is being sought.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1545-1546.) “If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b).) A movant’s failure to comply with the requirements of a separate statement, in the Court’s discretion, may constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Defendant failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b). Defendant’s Notice of Motion requests summary adjudication of the following nine issues:

1. ISSUE 1 (Global) – FAC rhetoric vs. routine, non-secret conduct (van photos, equipment, uniform sizes, generic forms); 2. ISSUE 2 (Global) – Failure to identify specific trade secrets, documents, clients, or damages; 3. ISSUE 3 – First Cause of Action (Breach of Duty of Loyalty) as to Hernandez and Johnson; 4. ISSUE 4 – Third Cause of Action (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) as to all moving Defendants against whom it is pled; 5. ISSUE 5 – Fifth Cause of Action (Penal Code § 502) as to Hernandez and Johnson; 6.

ISSUE 6 – Sixth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy) as to all moving Defendants; 7. ISSUE 7 – Second Cause of Action (Aiding and Abetting Breach of Duty of Loyalty) as to Dry Creek; 8. ISSUE 8 – Fourth Cause of Action (Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) as to Dry Creek; and 9. ISSUE 9 (Global) – Damages as to all claims asserted against the moving Defendants.

(Notice of Motion, pp. 2-3.) The Court notes that Defendant’s Issues 1 2, and 9 as framed in his Notice of Motion do not refer to any particular cause of action. Furthermore, to the extent Defendant asserts that Issues 1, 2, and 9 are applicable to any specific cause of action, Defendant has presented no argument or authority showing how summary adjudication of Issue 1, Issue 2, or Issue 9 will “completely dispose” of any cause of action at issue in this action as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1). The Court further notes that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Defendant’s Notice of Motion seeks summary adjudication of causes of action that are not asserted against him, including the second and fourth causes of action, which the FAC asserts exclusively against Dry Creek and Ritchie.

Lastly, Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMFs”) does not include verbatim repetition of the issues from the Notice of Motion:

Issue in Notice of Motion Issue in Separate Statement ISSUE 1 (Global) – FAC rhetoric vs. routine, Issue 1: Whether ATI’s generalized narrative non-secret conduct (van photos, equipment, that Defendants “stole” ATI’s entire uniform sizes, generic forms) Sacramento healthcare operation and “gutted” its healthcare division (FAC ¶¶ 1, 8–11, 55, 188 192, 248–254) can support any cause of action where the undisputed facts show that the alleged acts consist of ordinary, non-secret conduct: photographs of openly visible vans and equipment, generic industry forms and templates, off-the-shelf equipment lists, basic clothing sizes, and an after-hours meeting at Sky River—none of which are inherently wrongful, confidential, or proprietary.

ISSUE 2 (Global) – Failure to identify Issue 2: Whether ATI can proceed on any specific trade secrets, documents, clients, or cause of action where, after forensic imaging damages of Dry Creek’s servers and devices and production of roughly one million pages of ESI, ATI has (a) failed to identify any specific document from Dry Creek’s systems as a protectable trade secret or confidential document allegedly used by Defendants; (b) identified only UCD as a supposedly affected “healthcare” client despite pleading abstract “clients” in the plural; and (c) produced no client- or contract-specific damages evidence tied to any act by any particular Defendant.

ISSUE 3 – First Cause of Action (Breach of Issue 3: The First Cause of Action for Breach

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Duty of Loyalty) as to Hernandez and Johnson of Duty of Loyalty has no merit because there is no triable issue that Hernandez or Johnson (1) operated or ran a competing business while employed by ATI; (2) diverted ATI employees, customers, or jobs; or (3) caused any damages to ATI—and ATI has failed and refused to produce damages evidence tied to either Hernandez or Johnson. ISSUE 4 – Third Cause of Action (Tortious Issue 4: The Third Cause of Action has no Interference with Prospective Economic merit because there is no triable issue that any Advantage) as to all moving Defendants Defendant committed an “independently against whom it is pled wrongful” act directed at ATI’s clients, intentionally disrupted any specific economic relationship, or caused recoverable economic harm; ATI has no client-specific damages evidence tied to any Defendant.

ISSUE 5 – Fifth Cause of Action (Penal Code Issue 5: The Fifth Cause of Action under § 502) as to Hernandez and Johnson Penal Code section 502 has no merit because there is no triable issue that Hernandez or Johnson accessed ATI’s computer systems “without permission,” circumvented any security, caused any “damage or loss,” or used ATI data for Dry Creek, and ATI has no evidence of any loss or expense caused by their computer use. ISSUE 6 – Sixth Cause of Action (Civil Issue 6: The Sixth Cause of Action for Conspiracy) as to all moving Defendants “Conspiracy” has no merit because civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action, and to the extent it relates to vicarious liability, there is no triable issue that any Defendant entered into an agreement to commit a tort, performed a wrongful act in furtherance of a conspiracy, or caused any damages; ATI has no damages evidence tied to any alleged conspiratorial plan.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

ISSUE 7 – Second Cause of Action (Aiding Issue 7: The Second Cause of Action for and Abetting Breach of Duty of Loyalty) as to aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty Dry Creek has no merit because there is no triable issue that Dry Creek or Ritchie (1) knew of any actual breach of duty of loyalty by Hernandez or Johnson, (2) gave “substantial assistance” to any breach, or (3) caused ATI any damages separate from the ordinary effects of lawful employee mobility and competition. ISSUE 8 – Fourth Cause of Action (Unfair Issue 8: The Fourth Cause of Action under Competition, Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200) as Business and Professions Code section 17200 to Dry Creek has no merit because (1) ATI cannot show any “unlawful,” “fraudulent,” or “unfair” conduct by Dry Creek or Ritchie beyond the same alleged conduct underlying the other failed claims; (2) ATI has not proven any restitutionary loss attributable to Dry Creek or Ritchie; and (3) ATI seeks to re-package ordinary competition and employee mobility as “unfair” without the required evidentiary support. ISSUE 9 (Global) – Damages as to all claims [No issue 9 is included in the Separate asserted against the moving Defendants Statement in Support of Defendant Johnson’s motion.]

(Compare Notice of Motion with Sep. Stmt., filed 1/26/2026.)

As shown by the above, Defendant includes additional grounds for summary adjudication for all causes of action in the Separate Statement, and none of these additional grounds are not set forth in the Notice of Motion. The failure to include a verbatim repetition of issues from the Notice of Motion in the Separate Statement is an issue of due process. (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 743-744 [citing Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1546 [summary adjudication must include proper notice of each issue to be adjudicated so that opposing party does not raise only one triable issue of fact in order to defeat the motion, without intending to concede the other issues].) Failure to comply with California Rule of Court,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

rule 3.1350(b) is sufficient grounds to deny a motion for summary adjudication. (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 744.)

The Court thus finds that the deficiencies in Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Separate Statement warrant denial of Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, and the motion is DENIED on such grounds.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

In support of the motion for summary judgment, it appears that Defendant seeks for the Court to consider all 65 UMFs submitted I the Separate Statement. Indeed, Defendant asserts in the unauthorized preamble to the Separate Statement, Defendant provides:

Defendant RADFORD JOHNSON (“Johnson”) [Johnson’s co-defendants, PEDRO HERNANDEZ (“Hernandez”) and DRY CREEK CONSTR, have each filed separate concurrent motions addressing related substantive claims and issues. Collectively, Johnson, Hernandez, and Dry Creek are referred to as “Defendants.”] submits the following Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b)(3) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e), (f), (h), (i).

For each cause of action asserted in Plaintiff ATI Restoration, LLC’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)—and for the global issues that cut across all causes of action, including ATI’s overarching “conspiracy” theory—this Separate Statement identifies the Issue to be adjudicated and the Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) demonstrating that the claims have no merit. Because ATI seeks to impose joint and overlapping liability on all Defendants, an adjudication resolving a given issue as to one Defendant will, by its nature, narrow and streamline the case as to the others: even where an issue pertains most directly to a single Defendant, its resolution will still benefit the remaining Defendants by eliminating or narrowing common theories and reducing the scope of triable issues, whether or not all Defendants are ultimately dismissed.

(Sep. Stmt., filed 1/27/2026, at p. 1:23-2:16, emphasis added.) Accordingly, the failure of Defendant to support a single UMF or the existence of a single triable issues of material fact in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

connection with any UMF will mandate denial of summary judgment. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subds. (c), (g).)

For the first cause of action for breach of duty of loyalty, Defendant sets forth the following UMFS:

(17) Hernandez and Johnson were hourly field employees whose work involved hands-on field operations; neither was a corporate officer or director, and neither had authority to set ATI policies or bind ATI in contracts.

(18) Hernandez and Johnson were at will employees. ATI did not provide them any non- competition or non-solicitation agreements, and did not require them to disclose future employment plans. Each understood he remained free to consider and prepare, on his own time and without ATI resources, for post-ATI employment with Dry Creek so long as he continued performing ATI work, did not divert ATI business, and did not misuse genuinely confidential information.

(19) During their ATI employment, Hernandez and Johnson did not own, operate, or run any competing business, did not operate any Dry Creek “healthcare division” while on ATI’s payroll, and did not divert ATI jobs, customers, or employees to Dry Creek or any other competitor.

(20) Any planning Hernandez and Johnson undertook to leave ATI and work for Dry Creek consisted of general, preliminary steps—thinking about their own futures, talking after hours with family and trusted co workers, and having informal discussions about possible opportunities at Dry Creek—on their own time and without using ATI computers, email, vehicles, or other ATI resources.

(21) Hernandez and Johnson did not submit Dry Creek bids, misrepresent ATI’s willingness to perform any contract, or treat ATI jobs as Dry Creek jobs while still employed at ATI.

(22) Morale issues, workload complaints, and employee dissatisfaction at ATI arose from ATI’s own wage, workload, and benefit decisions—particularly after private-equity investment—not because of any coordinated scheme by Hernandez or Johnson. Many

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

employees independently discussed leaving ATI well before Dry Creek was even realistic option.

(23) ATI has not produced financial or business records quantifying any alleged damages attributable specifically to Hernandez’s or Johnson’s supposed breach of duty of loyalty.

The Court finds the Separate Statement to be deficient. First, a separate statement must “set forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party are undisputed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) Several of Defendant’s UMFs consist of multiple alleged facts within a single UMF. For example, UMF 17 includes combines the alleged facts that Hernandez and Defendant were hourly field employees, that neither was a corporate officer or director, and that neither had the authority to set ATI policies or bind ATI in contracts. (UMF 17.) UMFs 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 similarly set forth multiple alleged facts as a single UMF.

UMFs in the separate statement must also “be followed by a reference to supporting evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant’s UMF 21 cites to the declarations of Hernandez (¶¶ 25–31, 40–52, 60–66), Defendant (¶¶ 20–24, 60–64, 70–71, 84-86), and Ritchie (¶¶ 102–110, 121–130) as supporting evidence of the UMF that: “Hernandez and Johnson did not submit Dry Creek bids, misrepresent ATI’s willingness to perform any contract, or treat ATI jobs as Dry Creek jobs while still employed at ATI.” The Court’s review of this evidence shows that only paragraph 31 of the Hernandez Declaration relates to this UMF and it does not provide any facts to support that Hernandez did not submit Dry Creek bid or treat ATI jobs as Dry Creeks jobs while still employed.

Likewise, only paragraph 70 of Defendant’s Declaration relates to this UMF and, while it asserts Johnson’s respective denial that he ever submitted Dry Creek bids or misrepresented ATI’s willingness to perform any contract, it does not support the fact that Hernandez did not submit Dry Creek bids or that either of them did not treat ATI jobs as Dry Creek jobs while still employed at ATI. Only paragraph 107 of the Ritchie Declaration references this subject; however, it states that Ritchie “did not instruct Hernandez or Johnson to stop doing ATI work while they were on ATI’s payroll, did not tell them to misrepresent ATI’s capabilities ” (Ritchie Decl., ¶ 107.)

This does not support what Hernandez and Johnson actually did. The Court noted that the majority of evidence referenced in support of UMF 21 to be irrelevant to the facts asserted therein. However, those relevant paragraphs do not meet the initial burden for all the facts set forth in UMF 21. As such, Defendant has not met his initial burden with respect to this proffered “material fact.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Similarly, Defendant’s UMF 22 cites to the declarations of Hernandez (¶¶ 15–19, 60–66), Johnson (¶¶ 28–30) and Ritchie (¶¶ 5-10, 58-61) in support of the following UMF: “Morale issues, workload complaints, and employee dissatisfaction at ATI arose from ATI’s own wage, workload, and benefit decisions—particularly after private-equity investment—not because of any coordinated scheme by Hernandez or Johnson. Many employees independently discussed leaving ATI well before Dry Creek was even a realistic option.” The Court has reviewed this evidence and finds that none of the cited paragraphs support the contents of the UMF.

Defendant’s inclusion of evidence that is irrelevant and/or that does not support his UMFs is improper and requires the Court to waste its finite resources scouring the separate statements and opposing volumes of evidence in an attempt to find the relevant evidence. Further, Defendant has not met his initial burden with respect to this proffered “material fact.”

Noncompliance with the separate statement requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1) is sufficient grounds to deny the motion without considering its merits. “Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for [summary adjudication] and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are dispute.Both the court and the opposing party are entitled to have all the facts upon which the moving party bases its motion plainly set forth in the separate statement.” (United Community Church v.

Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335-336; see also Department of General Services v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal. App.3d 273, 284 [“because of the drastic nature of the remedy” summary judgment and [summary adjudication], the moving party “is held to strict compliance with the procedural requisites.”].)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that, at minimum, Defendant has failed to meet his initial burden with respect to UMFS 21 and 22.[1]

Nevertheless, even if the Court were to overlook the multiple deficiencies in Defendant’s Separate Statement, and even if the Court were to find that Defendant had met his initial burden, Plaintiff has met its own burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of material fact. To that end, Plaintiff submits evidence disputing Defendant’s UMF 17, which asserts: Hernandez and Johnson were hourly field employees whose work involved hands-on field operations; neither was a corporate officer or director, and neither had authority to set ATI policies or bind ATI in contracts.”[2] (emphasis added.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Plaintiff submits evidence showing that Hernandez was not an hourly employee, but was instead earned a salary plus bonus from ATI. (Defendant’s Appendix of Exhibits, Exhibit 15, 34: 1-17.)

It is unclear why Defendant has purposefully injected this fact as constituting a material fact upon which his motion for summary judgment is based. Indeed, if Defendant believed that Hernandez’s manner of compensation was not material to its motion, Defendant should not have included it in UMF 17. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2) [separate statement to include “only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion”]; Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 875-876 [paragraphs in separate statement should be limited to facts that address elements of cause of action or affirmative defense].)

Because Defendant has purposefully included such a material fact, Defendant cannot now deny its materiality. As previously explained, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact's “materiality,” whether intended or not. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252; see also Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506.)

Summary shall be granted only 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. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (c); 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1208.) Here, Plaintiff has shown that there are at least two UMFs that are not supported by the cited evidence and at least one triable issue of material fact. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety.

Evidentiary Objections

The Court does not rule on the evidentiary objections filed by either party since they concern evidence deemed immaterial to the decision on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See Evid. Code §§ 451, subd. (a), §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008800: ATI RESTORATION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs HERNANDEZ, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Radford Johnson in Department 8D

Disposition

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication is DENIED.

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.)

[1] As set forth in the concurrent ruling on Dry Creek’s motion for summary judgment, Defendant

has also failed to meet his initial burden with respect to UMFs 46 and 47. [2] The Court notes that Johnson’s declaration includes an attestation that he was an hourly field

employee, though not in the 4 paragraphs cited as supporting the UMF in the Separate Statement. (UMF 3.) No such attestation could be found in the Hernandez declaration, let alone in the paragraphs cited in support of the UMF.