Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-003541 - GLORIA, ESTEBAN vs FINNEGAN, CHERYL LYNN - Defendant Cheryl Lynn Finnegan's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint - GRANTED.
Defendant has met her initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law. The undisputed evidence establishes that Finnegan was employed by Sylvan Unified School District, was on duty, and was operating a school bus along an assigned route transporting students at the time of the subject incident. These facts establish that she was acting within the course and scope of her public employment. As a result, Plaintiff's claims are subject to the Government Claims Act.
The evidence further establishes that Plaintiff's claim was rejected, notice of rejection was sent in early January 2024, and Plaintiff did not file suit until April 16, 2025 - well beyond the six-month statutory period. The action is therefore time-barred under Government Code section 945.6.
The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff presents no admissible evidence showing that Finnegan was acting outside the course and scope of employment. Plaintiff's reliance on assertions of distraction, argument, and speculation is insufficient to create a triable issue. Plaintiff does not dispute the operative dates relevant to the timeliness of the action. Accordingly, the statutory bar applies as a matter of law.
Plaintiff's estoppel arguments are unavailing. The record does not demonstrate any actionable misrepresentation of fact, and estoppel does not arise based on litigation positions or alleged misstatements of law.
Additionally, Plaintiff's opposition was filed late. The Court has discretion to disregard the untimely opposition. Even if considered, the opposition fails to raise a triable issue for the reasons stated above.
Requests for Judicial Notice: Both parties' requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. The Court takes notice of the existence and filing of the documents, but not the truth of disputed matters asserted therein.
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?”
Evidentiary Objections: All objections are OVERRULED as immaterial to the disposition of the motion.
Disposition: The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant.
CV-25-005406 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs SERENO, JACLYN - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings - DENIED, without prejudice.
Proof of service of the instant motion is not admissible herein because it does not comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2015.5. In the absence of a response from Defendant, the Court cannot conclude that service was properly accomplished in this instance.
CV-26-000780 - CHAHAL, NAHAR SINGH vs NEWREZ LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.
Counsel fails to sufficiently demonstrate his inability to obtain the client's consent to a substitution of attorneys pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 284(1). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c).)
CV-26-003220 - HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP 1085); Request for Emergency Stay and Immediate Release of Property - DENIED.