DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22599113·sf·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

DEBORAH HIGER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Motion To Strike Plaintiff'S Evidence In Support Of Her Oposition To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jun 6, 2025
Department
301
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDEBORAH HIGER
DefendantDIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
DefendantDR. DAVID HOLST, M.D.
DefendantDR. RONALD K. LAGRO, M.D.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC22599113 - June 6, 2025 Hearing date: June 6, 2025 Case number: CGC22599113 Case title: DEBORAH HIGER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22599113 | Case Title: | | DEBORAH HIGER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-06 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Strike Plaintiff'S Evidence In Support Of Her Oposition To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for June 6, 2025, Line 1. DEFENDANTS DR. DAVID HOLST, M.D., DR. RONALD K. LAGRO, M.D., DIGNITIY HEALTH'S Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Evidence In Support Of Her Oposition To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Summary Adjudication.

Defendant Dignity Health et al.'s motion to strike Plaintiff's evidence is denied as untimely per CCP 1005(b). In any event, the court construes this motion as an evidentiary objection or response to Plaintiff's separate statement opposing summary judgment, specifically Plaintiff's undisputed material facts 1 and 7. The court has considered these responses in ruling on Defendants' companion motion for summary judgment.

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.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |

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