Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs

34-2020-00285924-CU-CR-GDS: Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. 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 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Plaintiff Jamie Morgan (“Plaintiff”) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.

The notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s department. (See Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D).) Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.

Trial in this action is currently scheduled for June 30, 2026. Plaintiff requests a continuance to January 2027 on grounds Plaintiff’s Counsel is unavailable for trial due to health concerns and that Plaintiff will need to retain new trial counsel. Defendants Samuel & Kathleen Rounseville (“Rousenville Defendants”) oppose the motion. Defendants County of Sacramento, Jaclyn Hobbs, Victoria Staebler, Natalie Davey Samantha Saechao, Marisa Sandoval, Dulce Olivares, Vanessa Segovia-Oviedo, Michelle Callejaas, and Janelle Schuster (the “County Defendants”) also oppose the motion.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an

34-2020-00285924-CU-CR-GDS: Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff’s Counsel submits evidence that he suffers from health issues that prevent him from representing Plaintiff at trial and necessitate that Plaintiff retain new counsel. In opposition, the Rousenville Defendants and the County Defendants submit evidence that Plaintiff has known about Counsel’s health issues since at least June 2024 and argue Plaintiff therefore cannot rely on Counsel’s health as good cause to continue trial because Plaintiff could have addressed that issue previously by retaining new counsel.

The record confirms that on June 28, 2024, the Court previously found good cause to specially set trial on September 15, 2025 due to concerns regarding Plaintiff’s Counsel’s health and the age of the case. (Minute Order, 06/28/2024.) On April 25, 2025, the Court granted a motion to continue trial and referred the action back to the trial setting process. The parties selected the current trial date of June 30, 2026.

There is substantial evidence that Plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of Counsel’s health such that Plaintiff could have reasonably anticipated the need to retain co-counsel or substitute counsel. Nonetheless, as it appears Counsel has only recently recognized the full extent of his health issues and incapacity, the Court finds good cause for a short continuance. However, based on the information presented in the collective papers, the current deadline to commence trial is July 30, 2026. The County Defendants refuse to stipulate to extend this deadline. Accordingly, the Court finds the length of the continuance requested by Plaintiff is excessive and will instead set a new trial date before the current deadline to commence trial.

The motion is granted as to the request for a continuance but denied as to the length of the continuance requested. The June 30, 2026 trial date is VACATED. Trial is set for July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A.

To the extent discovery is closed, the continuance does not operate to reopen discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) All other statutory deadlines, including expert and non-expert discovery deadlines that remain open as of the date of the hearing shall be governed by the new trial date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285924-CU-CR-GDS: Jaime Morgan vs. Jaclyn Hobbs 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. 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 court 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 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.