Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20STCV16533, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 20STCV16533    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: T

[TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendant Jonathan Todd Jackson’s and
Defendant Kevin Hart’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion for Summary
Adjudication is CONTINUED to _______________, 2022.  Defendant Jonathan Todd Jackson’s and
Defendant Kevin Hart’s Reply briefs are to be filed and served by
_______________, 2022.  Plaintiff Montia
Sabbag is prohibited from filing/serving any additional briefs.

Introduction

Defendant Jonathan T.
Jackson (Jackson) and Defendant Kevin Hart (Hart) (collectively “Defendants,”)
separately, move for summary judgment (MSJ) or alternatively for summary
adjudication (MSA) against Plaintiff Montia Sabbag’s (Plaintiff or Sabbag)
Third Amended Complaint (TAC.)  Hart’s
MSJ/MSA moves against the first cause of action (COA) for negligence (MSA Issue
1,) the second COA for negligent supervision (MSA Issue 2,) the third COA for
invasion of privacy – intrusion  upon
seclusion (MSA Issue 3,) the fourth COA for invasion of privacy – public
disclosure of private facts (MSA Issue 4,) the seventh COA for intentional
infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (MSA Issue 5), and the fourteenth COA
for violation of the constitutional right to privacy (MSA Issue 6.)  Jackson’s MSJ/MSA moves against the sixth COA
for negligence (MSA Issue 1,) the seventh COA for invasion of privacy –
intrusion upon seclusion (MSA Issue 2,) the eighth COA for invasion of privacy
– public disclosure of private facts (MSA Issue 3,) the thirteenth COA for IIED
(MSA Issue 4,) and the fourteenth COA for violation of the constitutional right
to privacy (MSA Issue 5.) 

Sabbag was given until
August 9, 2022 to file and serve an opposition. 
Defendants filed notices of non-opposition on August 10, 2022.  Sabbag untimely filed and served an opposition
on August 11, 2022.  Jackson filed a
timeliness objection against Sabbag’s opposition and did not address the merits
of the opposition.

Procedure

As to Jackson’s
timeliness objection, the Court has broad discretion to consider late-filed
papers.  (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th
755, 765.)  In the interest of justice
and to hear cases on their merits, the Court exercises its discretion to
consider Sabbag’s untimely oppositions. 
However, to reduce the prejudice imposed upon Defendants in having only
one day to respond due to the August 12, 2022 deadline, the Court continues the
hearing so that Defendants can file and serve a response to the substance of
the oppositions.  Defendants’ reply
papers are to be filed and served by August _____, 2022.  Plaintiff is not permitted to file/serve any
additional briefs or evidence.  The Court
CONTINUES the hearing to _____________, 2022.