MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery on Wednesday, June 4, 2025 Line 6, DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Defendants Blue Note Therapeutics, Inc. and Geoff Eich's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Moving Defendants fail to identify a basis for their motion in their caption or in the motion itself. This alone is grounds for denial.
On page 5 of their memorandum, they indicate their motion is "pursuant to [Civil Procedure section] 438." Subdivision (e) of section 438 sets out the timing requirement for such motions: "No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits."
Plaintiff's contention that Defendants' motion is untimely is well taken. Here, the action was initially set for trial in mid-September 2024. Thus, any motion for judgment on the pleadings under section 438 had to bee made by mid-August 2024. Moving Defendants made their motion on May 28, 2025-more than nine months too late.
The court declines Moving Defendants' invitation to construe their motion as a common law motion. Moving Defendants ignored section 438's timing limitation in their moving papers and chose not to move under the common law. The court sees no good cause to salvage the motion now and ignore Moving Defendants' own election.
Similarly, the court declines to exercise its discretion to hear the motion. Moving Defendants ignored the obvious timing issue and have not established good cause for the court to buck the legislative directive and now hear the motion on the merits. On the other side of the coin, the prejudice from such a motion within two months of trial requiring opposing counsel to redirect limited resources away from trial preparation is manifest.
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied on relevance grounds, given the court did not reach any issues regarding interpretation of Labor Code section 1102. The motion is denied.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.
=(302/JMQ) | |