DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Wrongful Termination
Hearing over 1 year agoCONTINUED

Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters

Motion to Continue Trial

Hearing date
Apr 4, 2025
Department
47
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 25, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPeter M. Sailors
DefendantSarah Waters

Ruling

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

This hearing is CONTINUED to April 25, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47.

This hearing was scheduled on shortened time for an anticipated motion to continue trial. (Order on Ex Parte Application, 03/25/2024.) The Court’s order required the moving papers to be filed and served by March 24, 2025. (Ibid.) No motion was filed and there is no record that a filing fee for a motion was tendered to the clerk. The Court notes Plaintiffs filed an opposition that references the instant hearing date. As it appears there is still a dispute regarding the need for a continuance, the Court will continuing the hearing. Moving Papers shall be filed no later than April 8, 2025. Any opposition shall be filed by April 16, 2025.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

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