Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2020-01143739, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication filed by Chevron Stations, Inc. on 6/9/22

As set forth in Defendant’s reply, the CP§437c(h) request for a continuance of the MSJ is insufficient. However, since Plaintiff is in pro per, and the request is made in order to acquire new counsel, the court will consider the request to continue.                                          

Tentative Ruling: Defendant, CHEVRON STATIONS INC’s motion for summary judgment is continued to December 12, 2022 in order for Plaintiff, who has been in pro per since April 2021, to obtain new counsel and submit an opposition to the motion that complies with the CCP and CRC (including, but not limited to, points and authorities in opposition, evidence, responsive separate statement, etc.). Whether Plaintiff is able to retain counsel or not, the Court expects Plaintiff to file an opposition and separate statement 14 calendar days prior to the continued hearing date. Defendant is permitted to file a reply per code.

While the continued hearing date is less than 30 days before trial, good cause is established. (CCP 437c(a)(3).)

Furthermore, as a reminder, the fact that plaintiff is in pro per does not afford him special treatment. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Pro pers must abide by the same procedural rules – e.g., the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.)

Defendant to give notice.