IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al.

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Jason Clinkenbeard and Michelle Clinkenbeard’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Michelle Irving’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint is DROPPED for defective service.

A motion for summary judgment must be served “at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) “If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.” (Ibid.)

Pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), the last day to serve a motion for summary judgment via email for an August 4, 2026 hearing date was May 13, 2026. Here, Defendants’ proof of service states that the documents were served on May 19, 2025, but the date of execution is listed as June 12, 2026. (Proof of service, file 6/12/2026.) Assuming the motion was served on May 19, 2026, the motion was served only 77 days before the hearing. If the motion was served on June 12, 2026, then it was served only 53 days before the hearing.

The trial court may not shorten the notice period absent consent from all parties. (Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 760.) Nor may insufficient notice be cured by a continuance of the hearing. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267-1268.) Thus, since Defendant did not provide sufficient notice, the motion must be dropped.

Further, the proof of service submitted with the motion is unsigned, which is a further defect that requires that the instant motion be DROPPED.

This appears to be the second motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Jason Clinkenbeard. On June 25, 2026, the Court granted Defendant Jason Clinkenbeard’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff sued the wrong person as Mr. Clinkenbeard was not involved in any way with the subject incident and, therefore, Plaintiff could not establish he was negligent or caused her harm. Mr. Clinkenbeard’s motion was granted as to the Complaint notwithstanding that Plaintiff was given leave to file a First Amended Complaint on May 12, 2026. (See Minute Order, dated 6/25/2026.)

Upon review, the Court believes this is an appropriate case to exercise its authority to sua sponte reconsider its order on Mr. Clinkenbeard’s first motion for summary judgment. (See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1106-08 [court possesses inherent authority to reconsider its own interim orders prior to entry of final judgment]; Farmers Ins. Exchange v.

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 96, 107, fn. 17 [same]; In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin & Sanchez (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1043-44 [same].) In Le Francois, the California Supreme Court held “any action to reconsider a prior interim order must formally begin with the court on its own motion. To be fair to the parties, if the court is seriously concerned that one of its prior interim rulings might have been erroneous, and thus that it might want to reconsider that ruling on its own motion—something we think will happen rather rarely—it should inform the parties of this concern, solicit briefing, and hold a hearing.” (Le Francois, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1108.) Accordingly, the Court informs the parties it intends to reconsider its June 25, 2026 ruling on Mr. Clinkenbeard’s motion for summary judgment for the following reasons.

In its order, the Court accepted that Mr. Clinkenbeard’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 4 as undisputed. UMF 4 states:

The Complaint alleges a single charging allegation as follows:

“Plaintiff: Michelle Irving MV-1. Plaintiff alleges the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff; the acts occurred on (date): June 21, 2023 at (place): Hwy 16 at Dillard Road at 5 pm, Unincorporated Sacramento County California Plaintiff was stopped at a red light on highway 16 when she was rear-ended by the Defendant.”

However, Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed March 27, 2025, also alleged alternative theories of liability under MV-2, including permissive use, negligent entrustment, and vicarious liability. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was exclusively premised on Plaintiff’s inability to show that Mr. Clinkenbeard negligently operated the vehicle. It did not address Plaintiff’s other theories of liability.

On summary judgment, the moving party’s 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.) In his first motion, Mr. Clinkenbeard failed to state sufficient UMFs demonstrating that the Plaintiff could not prevail on her permissive use, negligent entrustment, and vicarious liability theories of liability.

For example, Vehicle Code section 17150 states, “Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for death or injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the owner.” Mr. Clinkenbeard offered no UMFs showing that he is not the owner of the vehicle, such that statutory liability would not apply.

With respect to negligent entrustment, “[i]t is generally recognized that one who places or entrusts his [or her] motor vehicle in the hands of one whom he [or she] knows, or from the circumstances is charged with knowing, is incompetent or unfit to drive, may be held liable for an injury inflicted by the use made thereof by that driver, provided the plaintiff can establish that the injury complained of was proximately caused by the driver’s disqualification, incompetency, inexperience or recklessness.” (Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063; see also CACI No. 724.) Mr. Clinkenbeard provided no UMFs establishing that he did not own the vehicle, did not entrust the vehicle to Mrs. Clinkenbeard, and/or did not know that Mrs. Clinkenbeard was not fit to operate the vehicle.

With respect to vicarious liability, pursuant to Civil Code section 2338, “a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal.” Mr. Clinkenbeard offered no UMFs purporting to show that Mrs. Clinkenbeard was not operating as his agent or employee at the time of the accident.

Mr. Clinkenbeard’s failure to address these alternative theories of relief, which were plead in the Complaint, is fatal to the motion for summary judgment.

Thus, the Court intends to vacate its June 25, 2026 ruling granted Mr. Clinkenbeard’s motion for summary judgment. The parties may file supplemental briefs regarding the Court’s intention to vacate its prior ruling by no later than September 1, 2026.

On its own motion, the Court sets this matter for hearing on September 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 16C, at which time it will address the parties’ supplemental briefs and issue its decision on whether the prior ruling should be vacated.

In sum, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on June 12, 2026 is DROPPED for defective service while a further hearing is set for September 10, 2026 on whether the original summary judgment ruling should be vacated.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

The parties may file supplemental briefs regarding the Court’s intention to vacate its prior ruling by no later than September 1, 2026, and the matter will be heard on September 10, 2026.

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.)

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 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

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.

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 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE.