PATTERSON v. TRADER JOE’S, et al.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 29, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 26CV00047

THOMAS v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD

APPLICATION OF BREEN M. SCHILLER FOR PRO HAC VICE

This is a petition for writ of mandate filed by the County Assessor Sheri Thomas against the Santa Cruz County Assessment Appeals Board related to its September 11, 2025, findings reducing the base year value and allocating certain values to land and improvements for property owned by real party in interest Scotts Village LLC at 233-259 Mount Herman Road, Scotts Valley, California.

The application of Breen M. Schiller, on behalf of real party in interest Scotts Village LLC, complies with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40 and is granted.

No. 25CV01810

PATTERSON v. TRADER JOE’S, et al.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING THE ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ PMQ

This motion is continued to June 17, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in the interim and file, no later than June 10, 2026, a joint statement (limited to 5 pages in length) informing the Court of their efforts to cooperatively set the depositions of the PMQs in question.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 29, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

If the parties cannot resolve this matter cooperatively and collaboratively, the Court will revisit the issue of assigning a discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 695, subdivision (a)(5). The parties should be prepared to discuss such an assignment, the manner of appointment, and cost sharing. The Court notes that there are four discovery motions reserved for July 15, 2026, and there were nine on calendar on April 24, 2026. An order directing all discovery matters to a discovery referee is appropriate in the “unusual case where a majority of the factors favoring reference are present.

These include: (1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.) When one or more of these factors “unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its direction to make an appropriate reference.” (Id. at p. 106.)

No. 22CV00539

BRIGHT V. CALIF. FAIR PLAN ASSOC., et al.

DEFENDANT CALIF. FAIR PLAN ASSOC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION

Defendant California FAIR Plan Association’s motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication is denied. Disputed material facts exist as to all three bases for the motion – plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and punitive damages.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

In a summary judgment motion, the court must determine from the evidence presented that “there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (c) (§ 473c).) In making this determination, the court may rely on “affidavits, declarations ... and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” (§ 437c, subd. (b).) The plaintiff “may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

The court’s sole function on a motion for summary judgment is issue-finding, not issue determination. To be material, the fact must relate to some claim or defense in issue under the pleadings and be in some way essential to the judgment; if proved, it could change the outcome