Motion for order upholding confidentiality designations
2. 24CV07207, Heggen v. Rohnert Park RI L.P.
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
IF THERE ARE ANY REQUESTS TO APPEAR, THEY WILL BE HEARD ON FRIDAY, JULY 24, AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPT.
19.
Defendant Rohnert Park RI, LP dba Budget Inn Rohnert Park (“Defendant”) moves pursuant to CCP section 437c for summary judgment in its favor against Plaintiff Loren Heggen (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Application to Continue Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reset Briefing Schedule. In the Application, Plaintiff seeks relief partially under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(2), which authorizes the Court, for good cause, to allow a late-filed opposition deadline, and under the Court’s discretion concerning late-filed papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) Plaintiff alternatively seeks discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), based on counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.
Plaintiff states the request for a continuance arises from a single, inadvertent internal assignment failure for which Plaintiff’s lead counsel accepts responsibility. Counsel mistakenly believed the pending summary judgment motion and opposition deadline had been transmitted and assigned to contract counsel who assists counsel’s office with dispositive motion practice. Pursuant to the firm's normal custom and practice, lead counsel instructed staff to transmit the Motion for Summary Judgment to contract counsel for preparation of the opposition.
An assignment email was prepared, but due to an inadvertent clerical error, contract counsel's email address was omitted from the recipients even though she was addressed in the email itself. Consequently, both counsel and staff believed the assignment had been made when, in fact, contract counsel never received it. Lead counsel did not discover the mistake until after Defendant filed its reply noting that no opposition had been filed. Plaintiff himself had no role in the missed deadline.
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?”
Jury Trial is set in this matter for November 20, 2026. Unfortunately, this department’s law and motion calendar is being set out into February of 2027. Accordingly, in order to grant the relief requested by Plaintiff, this court will also have to vacate the trial date.
Plaintiff’s request to continue Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to February 10, 2027, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. The briefing schedules are set per CCP section 437c. In addition, the trial in this matter set for November 20, 2026, is hereby VACATED. This court hereby sets a Case Management Conference for trial setting on February 16, 2027, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. All discovery cut-off dates remain in place.
3. 25CV00062, Jose Miguel Valencia v. City of Rohnert Park
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL) 2
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
This matter is on calendar for the motion of defendant City of Rohnert Park (“City”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.060 and 2023.030, and Paragraph 6 of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, for an order upholding the confidentiality designations on documents, testimony, and information addressed in Plaintiff Jose Miguel Valencia’s (“Plaintiff’s”) designation objections.
On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to file a Dismissal of the Entire Action. The filing was rejected. The court clerk noted: “Page two is not included in this filing. Since 2. has been marked as "yes" page two needs to be included and completed.”
As Plaintiff intends to dismiss this action, the City’s pending motion will become moot. Accordingly, the motion is taken off calendar.
4. 25CV04416, Christos v. Crane
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Defendants Leslie Jo Crane (“Crane”), Dan Larson (“Larson”), River Time Restaurant & Bar (“River Time”), Rhonda Hall (“Hall”), and Christina Hulsey (“Hulsey”)(together “Defendants”) move for an order vacating the clerk’s entry of default entered against them. Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $6,695.40 against Plaintiff’s counsel, Suzanne Schornack, pursuant to CCP section 128.5 for failing to warn defense counsel before seeking Defendants’ defaults.
1. Standards on Motion for Relief from Default
Where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and no prejudice to the opposing party will result from setting aside the default and letting the case go to trial on the merits, “very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 227, 233.)
2. Proofs of service of process
Plaintiff Cherie Sexton Christos (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint on July 11, 2025. Proofs of service of process for Defendants were filed on September 25, 2025. The proofs of service of process show each Defendant was served at 16225 Main St, Guerneville, CA 95446, on August 24, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., by leaving summons and complaint with River Time owner, Leslie Jo Crane.
The declaration of diligence for service on Hulsey indicates that the process server attempted to serve Hulsey several times at River Time and once at her home prior to serving her by substituted service. The declaration of diligence for service on Larson indicates the same. The declaration of diligence for service on Hall indicates the process server attempted to serve Hall at River Time numerous times prior to serving her by substituted service.
In her declaration, Crane states defendants Larson and Hulsey are not employed by River Time. (Crane decl., ¶7.) She states that when she was served, she was only served with one summons and one complaint. (Id., ¶10.) The summons attached to Crane’s declaration lists all defendants in the “Notice to Defendant” section. (Id., Exhibit A.) Crane states she was not told if she was being personally served in her capacity as an individual, if she was being served on behalf 3