Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D
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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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/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.
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?”
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. 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
23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****
TENTATIVE RULING:
In Pro Per Defendant Joseph Padillas (Defendant) motion for summary judgment is DROPPED for defective service.
A motion for summary judgment must be served 'at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days. (Ibid.)
Pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), the last day to serve a motion for summary judgment via mail for an April 20, 2026 hearing date was January 24, 2026. Here, Defendant served the motion via mail on January 29, 2026, which is only 81 days before the hearing. This is insufficient notice as it does not include the required additional five days for mail service.
The trial court may not shorten the notice period absent consent from all parties. (Urshan v. Musicians' Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 760.) Nor may insufficient notice be cured by a continuance of the hearing. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267-1268.) Thus, since Defendant did not provide sufficient notice, the motion must be dropped.
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.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D