Rodriguez v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/5

Filed 12/13/24 Rodriguez v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, A168635 & A168802 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN (San Francisco County FRANCISCO, Super. Ct. No. CGC21590280) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Jose Rodriguez (appellant) appeals following the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent City and County of San Francisco (respondent) and the denial of three postjudgment motions.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND In March 2021, appellant filed the present action against respondent, HealthRight 360 Foundation (HealthRight 360), and three individuals associated with HealthRight 360. HealthRight 360 is a nonprofit organization that treats substance use disorders (SUD) and mental health problems. Appellant alleges that he suffered a range of mistreatment and

1 On July 1, 2024, this court consolidated appellant’s two appeals,

A168635 and A168802, for purposes of further briefing, oral argument, and decision.

1

loss of funds while in residential SUD treatment with HealthRight 360, and that respondent is responsible because it promoted HealthRight 360 and contracted with the organization to “deliver goods and services to people who suffer from SUD.” Appellant’s operative complaint alleges three causes of action against respondent for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.), fraud, and retaliation.2 In December 2022, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant filed an opposition to the motion in February 2023, and respondent filed its reply later that month. The hearing on the motion was continued until May 17, in order “to allow [appellant] to conduct discovery that may lead to a triable issue of material fact whether [respondent] and HealthRight 360 et al[.] were in an agency relationship.” Appellant’s supplemental opposition was due by May 1; he filed his “Supplemental Opposition Brief . . . On Agency Relationship” on May 2. He also filed a request for judicial notice of news articles, web pages, and other items, as well as an attorney declaration with exhibits attached. On May 4, 2023, appellant filed an “Addendum to Supplemental Brief on Agency Relationship,” presenting additional arguments that HealthRight 360 was “[respondent’s] agent.” Appellant’s counsel filed an “Addendum Declaration,” attaching amended discovery responses from HealthRight 360. Respondent filed a reply arguing that appellant’s opposition papers were “procedurally deficient because [appellant] failed to file a separate statement to introduce the pertinent facts he states in his memorandum of points and authorities and also failed to provide documents or affidavits to support those alleged facts.” Respondent also argued the opposition papers “fail to present any argument or admissible evidence to