DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2024-2139·yolo·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoMotion for leave to amend DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Motions for summary judgment/adjudication CONTINUED

Stewart v. The Regents

Motion for leave to file third amended complaint; Motion for summary judgment; Motion for summary adjudication

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
Thirteen
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed
Next hearing
Sep 10, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAshley Stewart
DefendantThe Regents of the University of California
DefendantJames Wood, DVM

Ruling

Case: Stewart v. The Regents Case No. CV2024-2139 Hearing Date: June 30, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Motion for leave to amend:

Plaintiff Ashley Stewart’s motion for leave to file third amended complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) The supporting declaration fails to specify: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; and (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b); Kraus decl.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Motions for summary judgment:

Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication and defendant James Wood, DVM’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication are CONTINUED to September 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department Thirteen.

5 of 5

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share