Tentative Ruling Announcement
September 22, 2014
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, COURT CALL MUST be notified AND the Clerk’s Office MUST also be notified before 4:00 p.m. TODAY.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at firstname.lastname@example.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.21 (b) concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012,
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 -- Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 -- Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 -- Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 -- Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Department 21:
**There are no tentative rulings for Department 21**
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
679026 – CARTER, LEANDER VS. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS – Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Summary Adjudication – DENIED for failure to show the absence of triable disputes of material fact. Some relief requests are also DENIED for procedural reasons. Plaintiff’s admissible opposing evidence also creates triable disputes on every relief request.
The original copy of Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence inside the front flap of volume 9 of the Court file, with a blue ink signature by Plaintiff’s Counsel, is ordered FILED in volume 11 of the Court file.
Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence are OVERRULED for failure to comply with rule 3.1354(d) of the California Rules of Court. Objections must be presented in a single numeric sequence which never restarts, instead of one sequence per document objected to. Defendant’s Objections to Nos. 1, 2, 26, 30, 40, 59 and 61are SUSTAINED. All the rest of Defendant’s Objections are OVERRULED. None of the excluded evidence, which includes all of Plaintiff’s documentary evidence, is material to the outcome of any adjudication request. The admissible portions of Plaintiff’s opposing declaration are sufficient to create triable disputes on every relief request.
Defendant’s summary judgment motion is DENIED for failure to support it with a separate statement of undisputed material facts. Defendant’s adjudication requests Nos. 10, 11 and 14 are DENIED for failure to seek relief allowable under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f). Partial adjudication of a cause of action is not allowed. Defendant’s adjudication requests Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are DENIED for failure to comply with rule 3.1350(d) of the California Rules of Court. Incorporation of undisputed Facts by reference is not allowed. Each undisputed Fact must be set forth in full.
Defendant’s adjudication requests Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are DENIED as its moving undisputed material Facts on those requests fail to entitle it to summary adjudication of the causes of action attacked even if all of the moving Facts are found to be undisputed. Defendant’s 4th, 9th and 12th adjudication requests do not address all issues framed by the causes of action attacked. Adjudication requests Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are DENIED as at least one moving undisputed material Fact supporting each of those requests is not supported by the cited moving evidence. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, alone, suffices only to establish what he has personal knowledge of, and is not sufficient to establish all facts and evidence known to his counsel as well. This distinction is pertinent to claims of employment discrimination and retaliation as opposed to harassment.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
**There are no tentative rulings for Department 23**
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:
**There are no tentative rulings for Department 24**