Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 05/30/2018 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: D. Taylor
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak
CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion -
MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Adjudication
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Health Net of California, Inc.'s ("HNCA") Motion for Summary Adjudication as against the
Third and Seventh Causes of Action in the Consolidated Complaint of Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and
Tomas R. Arana (collectively, "Plaintiffs") is CONTINUED TO September 27, 2018 at 9 a.m. in this
Department.
Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff") has opposed the Motion and requested that Defendant's motion for
summary adjudication be denied in its entirety because Defendant has not provided
previously-requested discovery that Plaintiff claims is required for the Opposition. While the Court is not
persuaded that an outright denial of the instant motion is warranted here, the Court in its discretion will
continue the hearing on this motion so that Plaintiff's currently-pending motion to compel responses to
Request for Production 20-21 ("RFPs 20-21) can first be ruled upon. In the event the Court grants that
motion, a limited, discovery-related continuance of the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will
allow the Court to consider, and Defendant to respond to, the outstanding discovery that Plaintiff claims
she has been unable to obtain to date. (The Court herein makes absolutely no determination on the
merits of Plaintiff's still-pending motion to compel responses to RFPs 20-21; the Court finds only
that the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication must be continued so that motion can be ruled
upon and, if granted, complied with.)
The continued hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel RFP Nos. 20-21 (payroll records) is currently set
for June 19, 2018.
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), provides that "[i]f it appears from affidavits
submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both that facts
essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented, the court shall
deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make
any other order as may be just." A request for a discovery-related continuance may simply be made in
DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and must merely be supported by declarations
showing facts that justify the requested continuance. (Combs v. Skyriver Communications, Inc. (2008)
159 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1270; Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1350,
1353.) "A declaration in support of a request for continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h) must
show: '(1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe
such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain those facts.'"
(Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254 (citation omitted).) The decision to grant a
continuance under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), falls within the discretion of the
trial court. (FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 69, 72.)
Here, the Court construes the discovery-based arguments in Plaintiff's Opposition as a request for a
discovery-related continuance. (Opp'n at 12-13.) Defendant is correct that this request is not
accompanied by any supporting affidavit or declaration, such that a continuance is not mandatory.
However, even absent a supporting declaration, a trial court must consider a request for a
discovery-related continuance, and it is an abuse of discretion to refuse the continuance when papers
show the proposed discovery to be "essential" to opposing the motion. (Lerma v. County of Orange
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716; Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632,
643-44.) Usually, the court's discretion should be exercised in favor of granting a continuance: "The
interests at stake are too high to sanction the denial of a continuance without good reason." (Frazee v.
Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634; see also Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8
Cal.App.5th 759, 765-66.)
"Where a plaintiff cannot make the showing required under section 437c, subdivision (h), a plaintiff may
seek a continuance under the ordinary discretionary standard applied to requests for a continuance."
(Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765.) "This requires a showing of
good cause." (Id.) "[I]n deciding whether to continue a summary judgment to permit additional discovery
courts consider various factors, including (1) how long the case has been pending; (2) how long the
requesting party had to oppose the motion; (3) whether the continuance motion could have been made
earlier; (4) the proximity of the trial date or the 30-day discovery cutoff before trial; (5) any prior
continuances for the same reason; and (6) the question whether the evidence sought is truly essential to
the motion." (Id. (citing Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 644).)
Plaintiff's Opposition identifies three of Defendant's Undisputed Facts ("UF"), UF Nos. 14, 15, and 19:
Fact No. 14: The exact amount of 'Flex Dollars' to which a Participant was entitled to varied depending
on the medical and dental plans that he or she chose, the number of dependents covered and the
Participant's geographic location, but generally, the amount was less than the total cost of the benefit(s)
that a participant elected.
Fact No. 15: In a vast majority of cases, the Participant was required to contribute some amount toward
the cost of the benefit(s) he or she selected, and the portion of the benefit coverage was deducted from
his or her paycheck.
Fact No. 19: In each of the Plan years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the total cash benefits provided to
Participants who waived dental and/or medical coverage represented a very small percentage of
HNCA's contributions provided under the Plan for the elected dental and/or medical coverage: 1/4% in
2013, 1.3% in 2014; 0.9% in 2015; and 0.9% in 2016.
Plaintiff's Opposition also articulates how her previously-propounded RFP Nos. 20-21 (which seek
payroll records for the putative class members) would yield evidence necessary to refute these specific
UFs. Again, the continued hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel RFP Nos. 20-21 (payroll records) is
currently set for June 19, 2018.
DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
Plaintiff argues that her receipt of such discovery is "essential" to opposing these specific UFs. Plaintiff's
Opposition argues that "[a] review of these payroll records is needed by Plaintiff in order to be able to
ascertain whether . . . the overall amount of Flex Dollars was or was not less than the cost of the benefits
that the participants elected with regard to Fact No. 14. This discovery would be pertinent to the issue of
whether Defendant properly excluded from the overtime payments the benefits payments made directly
to the trustee coded on Plaintiff's wage statement as 'DenFlxElct.'" (Opp'n at 12.) "The payroll data
would also allow Plaintiff to ascertain whether in the "vast majority of cases" participants had portions of
benefits coverage deducted from his or her paycheck with regard to Fact No. 15. Defendant should not
be permitted to object on the one hand that turning over such discovery is burdensome, while on the
other hand Defendant is secretly reviewing and processing the same classwide discovery for
Defendant's own benefit." (Opp'n at 13.) "The same goes for Defendant's representations in Fact No.
19 regarding the total amount of cash benefits provided to all Plan Participants on a classwide basis.
Plaintiff would have been able to review and corroborate whether Defendant's factual claims were true,
had Defendant complied with Plaintiff's discovery request for the payroll data of Class Members. . . . If
Plaintiffs' review of the data shows that Defendant's calculations were incorrect and the cash payments
were not small in comparison with Defendant's contributions, then Plaintiff would be able to argue that
Defendant's plan was not bona fide such that the payments Defendant made for benefits directly to the
trustee or third party should have been included in the overtime rate of pay." (Opp'n at 13.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 20-21 "do not contain the information" necessary to render
UF Nos. 14, 15, and 19 as "disputed." (Reply at 5.) This is because, according to Defendant, the
requested payroll records "would not provide a complete picture of what one needs to know to determine
that the fifth requirement [of the Benefit-Plan Contributions Exception] is satisfied." (Reply at 5.) The
Court is not persuaded that the fact that the payroll records would not suffice to "determine that the fifth
requirement" is satisfied shows that the discovery is not essential here. It is not Plaintiff's burden to
prove that any such requirement is "satisfied" on the instant Motion; and it is not Plaintiff's burden to
provide a "complete picture" of contributions and benefits practices. Instead, Plaintiff must merely show
that Defendant's UFs - as phrased by Defendant - are unsupported and/or give rise to a material factual
dispute. Defendant's UFs 14, for instance, makes the factual assertion that "generally, the amount of
[Flex Dollars to which a Plan Participant was entitled] was less than the total cost of the benefit(s) that a
participant elected." (UF No. 14.) Plaintiff argues that her requested discovery could potentially
disprove this factual assertion. Although the Court makes no determination at this time regarding the
materiality of this particular "fact," Plaintiff has persuaded the Court that RFPs 20-21 (payroll records)
could potentially yield evidence essential to rendering UF No. 14 disputed.
The Court finds that in this particular case, the balance tips in favor of allowing a discovery-related
continuance of the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. This is not a case where Plaintiffs have
had multiple years to complete discovery, for instance, and this case is not on the eve of trial. In fact, no
trial date has yet been set. This case was initiated just over a year ago, in April of 2017, with a First
Amended Complaint filed on June 29, 2017.
To the extent that Defendant argues that Plaintiffs were dilatory in conducting discovery, the case cited
by Defendant is not persuasive. (See Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 257 [plaintiff's
counsel "acknowledged that he intentionally delayed discovery for tactical reasons"].) Here, there has
been no admission of intentional, tactical delay by Plaintiff with respect to discovery. Indeed, Defendant
filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication on February 2, 2018, and Plaintiff filed motions to
compel the subject previously-propounded discovery on March 20, 2018. The Court heard the various
discovery motions on April 16, 2018, ultimately granted some of the motions in part, and continued
others - like the one regarding RFPs 20-21 - for further hearing set in June 2018. At least some of
Plaintiff's discovery motions have been found to have merit, such that Defendant has been ordered to
provide the discovery.
DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
The Court finds adequate justification here to grant a continuance to allow Plaintiff time to complete the
discovery she contends is necessary to oppose the instant Motion. In doing so, the Court does not give
any indication whether such evidence will ultimately be relevant or admissible in connection with
Plaintiff's Opposition to the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Court finds only that Plaintiff
has made a sufficient showing under section 437c, subdivision (h), to justify the exercise of discretion
and grant of the requested continuance.
The instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will now be heard on September 27, 2018 at 9 a.m. in this
Department, unless the parties stipulate to a later date.
Assuming no such stipulation, Plaintiff may file and serve amended Opposition papers and Response to
the Separate Statement no later than August 24, 2018, while Defendants may file and serve their Reply
to the amended Opposition no later than September 14, 2018. Should the parties stipulate to a later
hearing date, they must also stipulate to a briefing schedule whereby the Reply papers are filed at least
30 days before the hearing date.
In the event Plaintiff's pending motion to compel regarding RFPs 20-21 (payroll records) is denied, no
further briefing regarding the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will be permitted, and the Court
will hear the Motion on the continued hearing date based on the briefing currently on file.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
The Motion for Summary Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP is scheduled for
09/27/2018 at 09:00 AM in Department 54.
DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 4
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 05/30/2018 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger CLERK: D. Taylor REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017 CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Adjudication TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Health Net of California, Inc.'s ("HNCA") Motion for Summary Adjudication as against the Third and Seventh Causes of Action in the Consolidated Complaint of Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana (collectively, "Plaintiffs") is CONTINUED TO September 27, 2018 at 9 a.m. in this Department. Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff") has opposed the Motion and requested that Defendant's motion for summary adjudication be denied in its entirety because Defendant has not provided previously-requested discovery that Plaintiff claims is required for the Opposition. While the Court is not persuaded that an outright denial of the instant motion is warranted here, the Court in its discretion will continue the hearing on this motion so that Plaintiff's currently-pending motion to compel responses to Request for Production 20-21 ("RFPs 20-21) can first be ruled upon. In the event the Court grants that motion, a limited, discovery-related continuance of the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will allow the Court to consider, and Defendant to respond to, the outstanding discovery that Plaintiff claims she has been unable to obtain to date. (The Court herein makes absolutely no determination on the merits of Plaintiff's still-pending motion to compel responses to RFPs 20-21; the Court finds only that the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication must be continued so that motion can be ruled upon and, if granted, complied with.) The continued hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel RFP Nos. 20-21 (payroll records) is currently set for June 19, 2018. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), provides that "[i]f it appears from affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just." A request for a discovery-related continuance may simply be made in DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and must merely be supported by declarations showing facts that justify the requested continuance. (Combs v. Skyriver Communications, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1270; Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353.) "A declaration in support of a request for continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h) must show: '(1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain those facts.'" (Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254 (citation omitted).) The decision to grant a continuance under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), falls within the discretion of the trial court. (FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 69, 72.) Here, the Court construes the discovery-based arguments in Plaintiff's Opposition as a request for a discovery-related continuance. (Opp'n at 12-13.) Defendant is correct that this request is not accompanied by any supporting affidavit or declaration, such that a continuance is not mandatory. However, even absent a supporting declaration, a trial court must consider a request for a discovery-related continuance, and it is an abuse of discretion to refuse the continuance when papers show the proposed discovery to be "essential" to opposing the motion. (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716; Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 643-44.) Usually, the court's discretion should be exercised in favor of granting a continuance: "The interests at stake are too high to sanction the denial of a continuance without good reason." (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634; see also Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765-66.) "Where a plaintiff cannot make the showing required under section 437c, subdivision (h), a plaintiff may seek a continuance under the ordinary discretionary standard applied to requests for a continuance." (Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765.) "This requires a showing of good cause." (Id.) "[I]n deciding whether to continue a summary judgment to permit additional discovery courts consider various factors, including (1) how long the case has been pending; (2) how long the requesting party had to oppose the motion; (3) whether the continuance motion could have been made earlier; (4) the proximity of the trial date or the 30-day discovery cutoff before trial; (5) any prior continuances for the same reason; and (6) the question whether the evidence sought is truly essential to the motion." (Id. (citing Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 644).) Plaintiff's Opposition identifies three of Defendant's Undisputed Facts ("UF"), UF Nos. 14, 15, and 19: Fact No. 14: The exact amount of 'Flex Dollars' to which a Participant was entitled to varied depending on the medical and dental plans that he or she chose, the number of dependents covered and the Participant's geographic location, but generally, the amount was less than the total cost of the benefit(s) that a participant elected. Fact No. 15: In a vast majority of cases, the Participant was required to contribute some amount toward the cost of the benefit(s) he or she selected, and the portion of the benefit coverage was deducted from his or her paycheck. Fact No. 19: In each of the Plan years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the total cash benefits provided to Participants who waived dental and/or medical coverage represented a very small percentage of HNCA's contributions provided under the Plan for the elected dental and/or medical coverage: 1/4% in 2013, 1.3% in 2014; 0.9% in 2015; and 0.9% in 2016. Plaintiff's Opposition also articulates how her previously-propounded RFP Nos. 20-21 (which seek payroll records for the putative class members) would yield evidence necessary to refute these specific UFs. Again, the continued hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel RFP Nos. 20-21 (payroll records) is currently set for June 19, 2018. DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Plaintiff argues that her receipt of such discovery is "essential" to opposing these specific UFs. Plaintiff's Opposition argues that "[a] review of these payroll records is needed by Plaintiff in order to be able to ascertain whether . . . the overall amount of Flex Dollars was or was not less than the cost of the benefits that the participants elected with regard to Fact No. 14. This discovery would be pertinent to the issue of whether Defendant properly excluded from the overtime payments the benefits payments made directly to the trustee coded on Plaintiff's wage statement as 'DenFlxElct.'" (Opp'n at 12.) "The payroll data would also allow Plaintiff to ascertain whether in the "vast majority of cases" participants had portions of benefits coverage deducted from his or her paycheck with regard to Fact No. 15. Defendant should not be permitted to object on the one hand that turning over such discovery is burdensome, while on the other hand Defendant is secretly reviewing and processing the same classwide discovery for Defendant's own benefit." (Opp'n at 13.) "The same goes for Defendant's representations in Fact No. 19 regarding the total amount of cash benefits provided to all Plan Participants on a classwide basis. Plaintiff would have been able to review and corroborate whether Defendant's factual claims were true, had Defendant complied with Plaintiff's discovery request for the payroll data of Class Members. . . . If Plaintiffs' review of the data shows that Defendant's calculations were incorrect and the cash payments were not small in comparison with Defendant's contributions, then Plaintiff would be able to argue that Defendant's plan was not bona fide such that the payments Defendant made for benefits directly to the trustee or third party should have been included in the overtime rate of pay." (Opp'n at 13.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 20-21 "do not contain the information" necessary to render UF Nos. 14, 15, and 19 as "disputed." (Reply at 5.) This is because, according to Defendant, the requested payroll records "would not provide a complete picture of what one needs to know to determine that the fifth requirement [of the Benefit-Plan Contributions Exception] is satisfied." (Reply at 5.) The Court is not persuaded that the fact that the payroll records would not suffice to "determine that the fifth requirement" is satisfied shows that the discovery is not essential here. It is not Plaintiff's burden to prove that any such requirement is "satisfied" on the instant Motion; and it is not Plaintiff's burden to provide a "complete picture" of contributions and benefits practices. Instead, Plaintiff must merely show that Defendant's UFs - as phrased by Defendant - are unsupported and/or give rise to a material factual dispute. Defendant's UFs 14, for instance, makes the factual assertion that "generally, the amount of [Flex Dollars to which a Plan Participant was entitled] was less than the total cost of the benefit(s) that a participant elected." (UF No. 14.) Plaintiff argues that her requested discovery could potentially disprove this factual assertion. Although the Court makes no determination at this time regarding the materiality of this particular "fact," Plaintiff has persuaded the Court that RFPs 20-21 (payroll records) could potentially yield evidence essential to rendering UF No. 14 disputed. The Court finds that in this particular case, the balance tips in favor of allowing a discovery-related continuance of the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. This is not a case where Plaintiffs have had multiple years to complete discovery, for instance, and this case is not on the eve of trial. In fact, no trial date has yet been set. This case was initiated just over a year ago, in April of 2017, with a First Amended Complaint filed on June 29, 2017. To the extent that Defendant argues that Plaintiffs were dilatory in conducting discovery, the case cited by Defendant is not persuasive. (See Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 257 [plaintiff's counsel "acknowledged that he intentionally delayed discovery for tactical reasons"].) Here, there has been no admission of intentional, tactical delay by Plaintiff with respect to discovery. Indeed, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication on February 2, 2018, and Plaintiff filed motions to compel the subject previously-propounded discovery on March 20, 2018. The Court heard the various discovery motions on April 16, 2018, ultimately granted some of the motions in part, and continued others - like the one regarding RFPs 20-21 - for further hearing set in June 2018. At least some of Plaintiff's discovery motions have been found to have merit, such that Defendant has been ordered to provide the discovery. DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS The Court finds adequate justification here to grant a continuance to allow Plaintiff time to complete the discovery she contends is necessary to oppose the instant Motion. In doing so, the Court does not give any indication whether such evidence will ultimately be relevant or admissible in connection with Plaintiff's Opposition to the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Court finds only that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing under section 437c, subdivision (h), to justify the exercise of discretion and grant of the requested continuance. The instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will now be heard on September 27, 2018 at 9 a.m. in this Department, unless the parties stipulate to a later date. Assuming no such stipulation, Plaintiff may file and serve amended Opposition papers and Response to the Separate Statement no later than August 24, 2018, while Defendants may file and serve their Reply to the amended Opposition no later than September 14, 2018. Should the parties stipulate to a later hearing date, they must also stipulate to a briefing schedule whereby the Reply papers are filed at least 30 days before the hearing date. In the event Plaintiff's pending motion to compel regarding RFPs 20-21 (payroll records) is denied, no further briefing regarding the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication will be permitted, and the Court will hear the Motion on the continued hearing date based on the briefing currently on file. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING The Court affirmed the tentative ruling. The Motion for Summary Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP is scheduled for 09/27/2018 at 09:00 AM in Department 54. DATE: 05/30/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 54 Calendar No.