MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Robert Stamps, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Howard Glover v. Far Niente Wine Estates LLC et al 24CV001725
MOTION FOR (1) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; (3) REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS; AND (4) SERVICE PAYMENT TO REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order.
Caroline Geitner v. Tia Sonesouphab et al 24CV002118
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part. The motion to continue trial is MOOT. The motion to continue Defendants St. Joseph Health Northern California, LLC, Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Providence St. Joseph Health, Providence Health & Services, and Tia Sonesouphab’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication (“MSJ”) is GRANTED. The hearing on the MSJ currently set for July 23, 2026 is CONTINUED to September 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. A.
A. PROCEDURAL MATTER
On June 1, 2026, Plaintiff applied ex parte for an order continuing both trial and Defendants’ MSJ set for July 23, 2026. Defendants opposed the ex parte application only as to the request to continue the MSJ. The Court denied the ex parte application, electing instead to set the matter for hearing on shortened time. (6/2/26 Minute Order.) Defendants were granted leave to file and serve further briefing in opposition by June 6, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file a reply by June 12. (Ibid.) There is no further briefing on file by Defendants. Plaintiff filed a Reply on June 12.
The parties have since stipulated to continue trial. The trial management conference is now February 11, 2027 with trial on February 16, 2027. As a result, the motion to continue trial is MOOT.
Plaintiff requests a continuance of the MSJ to September 24, 2026 or a later date based on good cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h)1 because the need for additional discovery essential to oppose the MSJ exists and Plaintiff has a legitimate reason for
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
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?”
B. LEGAL STANDARD
“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (§ 437c, subd. (h).)
“Given the high stakes involved in motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, continuances under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h), are virtually mandated upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion. The affidavit is required to show that (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain or discover these facts.” (Braganza v. Albertson’s LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 152. Internal quotations and citations omitted.)
C. DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff’s ex parte application was timely filed prior to the date the opposition to the MSJ is due. Moreover, Plaintiff submits a declaration making the required showing under Braganza. (See Declarations of Brooke C. Bellah, filed 6/1/26, ¶¶ 4-5, 7-17, and filed 6/12/26, ¶¶ 6-12.) Further support for Plaintiff’s requested relief comes from the facts that a two-month continuance of the hearing date is minimal, and trial is more than seven months away.
In Opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s dilatory discovery conduct has created the emergency she now finds herself in regarding the need for depositions. Defendants also contend they would be prejudiced by a continuance. Defendants submit no evidence of prejudice, and their argument is not based on any individualized prejudice, but rather on general principles underlying MSJs. (See Opposition, 9:28-10:3 [“A continuance would: undermine the purpose of summary judgment to streamline litigation, extend the pendency of claims lack merit, and reward Plaintiff’s lack of diligence.”].)
In light of Plaintiff’s affirmative showing, and the policy that “[c]ontinuance requests under § 437c, subd. (h), are to be liberally granted,” the request to continue the MSJ hearing is GRANTED. (Braganza, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at 152.)
4