NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Judicial Notice in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Judicial Notice in Department 16D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiff Adam Neal’s “Motion for Judicial Notice of Probable Cause Standard for Welfare & Institutions Code § 5278 Established by State Law, the U.S. Constitution, and District Court Decisions” is denied.

This lawsuit, commenced on 2/5/2025, appears to arise from plaintiff’s visit to “a mental health clinic” in Sacramento in January 2023 due to “sleep deprivation,” his being then transferred to UC Davis Medical Center (“UCDMC”), and his subsequent placement on “a 5150-hold” while he slept. Plaintiff further alleges that after being placed on the 5150- hold, he was involuntarily transferred to a treatment facility in Santa Rosa and this facility later released plaintiff onto “the streets of Santa Rosa” to wait for a bus without his shoes, wallet or phone. After being dropped off in San Francisco, plaintiff took an Uber back to his apartment in Sacramento and later retrieved his personal belongings from the UC Davis Medical Center.

On March 10, 2026, Defendant the University of California’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend. Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is set to be heard on October 8, 2026.

By way of the instant motion, Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to take judicial notice of the legislative intent of Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150, the evidentiary standard of Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150.05(b), the “probable cause” standard of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and standard set forth in federal courts when determining whether immunity is available pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 5278.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. Plaintiff has simply presented a stand alone request for judicial notice. That is, the request is not made in connection with any pending motion, or any opposition to any pending motion. Evidence Code §§ 451 and 452 set forth a number of matters which are appropriate for judicial notice. “Although a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Judicial Notice in Department 16D

court may judicially notice a variety of matters (Evid. Code, § 450 et seq.), only relevant material may be noticed.” (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1057, 1063 [emphasis in original] overruled on other grounds in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276.) Courts properly “decline” to take judicial notice of material which “has no bearing on the limited legal question at hand.” (People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 1144, fn. 5.) Here, because the request for judicial notice is not presented in connection with any pending motion, it is not relevant to any pending issue. Thus, the motion is denied. Nothing precludes Plaintiff from requesting judicial notice in connection with a pending motion.

The Court need not address Defendant’s additional arguments presented in the opposition.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.