Motion for Summary Judgment
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 03/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53
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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Khanh Q. Les motion for summary judgment is DROPPED from calendar since the moving party failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §437c(a)(3), stating that a summary judgment motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. Here, trial of the present action is set for 4/14/2024 but the 3/27/2024 hearing date on this summary judgment motion is less than 30 days before the current trial date.
It appears that this 4/14/2024 trial date was established before the present motion was filed on 12/8/2023 but the moving party failed in the interim to seek or obtain leave of
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 03/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53
court to have this motion heard less than 30 days before trial. Alternatively, to the extent the 3/27/2024 hearing date was the next regularly available when Defendant reserved the hearing date, Defendant failed to request that this Court advance the hearing date so that Defendant may comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(3). The Court could have advanced the hearing date if requested and if the motion otherwise still complied with the minimum notice requirements in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(2) based upon an advanced hearing date. Instead, Defendant proceeded with a hearing date which at the outset, was violative of the 30-day requirement. Accordingly, the present motion for summary judgment is dropped from calendar.
The Court notes that both moving and opposing counsel submitted in support of and opposition to this motion medical evidence pertaining to plaintiff which may be considered private and protected by HIPAA and/or Californias Confidentiality of Medical Information Act at Civil Code §56. Counsel is reminded that the Courts online records system allows the public to electronically access and view all pleadings and papers once they are filed, unless the Court orders otherwise. Thus, it is imperative for counsel to appropriately redact all pleadings and documents before filing.
Should either party desire to shield the aforementioned medical evidence from public view, they should promptly file and serve an appropriate noticed motion to seal pursuant to CRC Rule 2.550 et seq. and lodge with the Court appropriately redacted but otherwise identical versions of the various documents filed in support of and/or opposition to this motion which contain the unredacted private medical information. (In the absence of such a motion, the private medical information will remain viewable by the public.)
Both moving and opposing failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(g), requiring a single volume of evidence (including declarations) with a table of contents when the evidence exceeds 25 pages.
Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1116(b) and (c), requiring deposition testimony offered as an exhibit include only the cover page and the relevant pages of the transcript and be highlighted in a manner that calls attention to the cited testimony.
Opposing counsels separate statement of additional material facts fails to comply with two-column format specified in CRC Rule 3.1350(f).
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)