IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al.

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jason Clinkenbeard’s (“Mr. Clinkenbeard”) motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Michelle Irving (“Plaintiff”) filed the Judicial Council form Complaint on March 27, 2025, against Mr. Clinkenbeard, alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleges she was stopped at a red light on Highway 16 when she was rear-ended by Mr. Clinkenbeard on June 21, 2023.

Mr. Clinkenbeard filed this motion in November 2025. He moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff has brought suit against the wrong person because he was not driving and was not involved in the alleged accident.

After this motion was filed, on May 12, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on May 13, 2026, which added Michelle Clinkenbeard (“Mrs. Clinkenbeard”) as a defendant. The substantive allegations remained unchanged.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advance, Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is only required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 939-940.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, at 843.)

Discussion

Mr. Clinkenbeard presents evidence that he is the only named defendant in the Complaint, which alleges a single cause of action for a motor vehicle accident. (UMFs 1-3.)[1] The Complaint alleges a single charging allegation as follows:

“Plaintiff: Michelle Irving MV-1. Plaintiff alleges the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff; the acts occurred on (date): June 21, 2023 at (place): Hwy 16 at Dillard Road at 5 pm, Unincorporated Sacramento County California Plaintiff was stopped at a red light on highway 16 when she was rear-ended by the Defendant.”

(UMF 4.)

Mr. Clinkenbeard was not driving the defendant’s vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. (UMF 5.) Mr. Clinkenbeard was not a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle or otherwise involved in the alleged accident. (UMF 6.) Mr. Clinkenbeard was nowhere near Highway 16 at Dillard Road in unincorporated Sacramento County, California at the time of the alleged accident. (UMF 7.) Mr. Clinkenbeard has never met Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

(UMF 8.) Mr. Clinkenbeard’s wife, Michelle Clinkenbeard, was driving the defendant’s vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. (UMF 9.) Defense counsel did not learn this information until after answering the subject Complaint and brought this motion as soon as possible thereafter. (UMF 10.)

Both Plaintiff and Mrs. Clinkenbeard exited their respective vehicles immediately following the alleged accident, exchanged information, and asked whether the other was injured. (UMF 11.) This interaction demonstrated to Mrs. Clinkenbeard a good faith belief that Plaintiff knew Mrs. Clinkenbeard’s identity at the time of the alleged accident, i.e., before the subject Complaint was filed. (UMF 12.)

Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Clinkenbeard asserts Plaintiff has sued the wrong person as he was not involved in any way with the subject incident and, therefore, Plaintiff cannot establish he was negligent or caused her harm.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that after the accident, she suffered significant cognitive and neurological impairments that materially affected her ability to identify and understand the proper parties responsible for the incident. Plaintiff then discusses legal authorities applicable to a motion for leave to amend, which this is not. For example, Plaintiff asserts she was genuinely ignorant of Mrs. Clinkenbeard’s identity and then she discusses the relation back doctrine for purposes of amendment.

Plaintiff then asserts Mr. Clinkenbeard has failed to establish prejudice sufficient to justify the extreme remedy of summary judgment. A showing of prejudice is not part of the legal standard applicable to evaluating a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also discusses equitable estoppel, which is inapplicable to this motion. It seems as if Plaintiff has repurposed her motion for leave to amend to oppose this motion for summary judgment, yet a motion for summary judgment is completely distinct and subject to a very different legal standard than a motion for leave to amend.

Nothing in Plaintiff’s opposition or response to Mr. Clinkenbeard’s material creates a triable issue of fact. Although Plaintiff purports to dispute Mr. Clinkenbeard’s material facts in Plaintiff’s response to the separate statement, Plaintiff’s evidence and responsive explanations do not actually create a dispute as to any material fact as presented.

Accordingly, Mr. Clinkenbeard’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. However, this ruling applies only to the moving party, Mr. Clinkenbeard, and does not apply to the newly named defendant, Mrs. Clinkenbeard.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Mr. Clinkenbeard is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

a hearing. If Mr. Clinkenbeard is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Mr. Clinkenbeard shall prepare a formal order complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g) and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

[1] As noted above, after this motion was filed, Plaintiff filed the First Amended

Complaint after the Court granted her motion for leave to amend. The only change between the Complaint and First Amended Complaint is the addition of Mrs. Clinkenbeard as a named defendant.

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16C

Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

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.