Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.12 concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 or ctreport@stanct.org to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-22-002763- SAMANDO, HAMLET vs MAGANA, CARLOS – Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion to be relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.
Counsel failed to submit proof of service of the moving papers on the client. Moreover, counsel failed to submit the supporting declaration on Judicial Council Form MC-052, as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(c).
CV-22-003478 – JACKSON, MICHAEL vs GRASPOINTER MANAGEMENT CO INC – Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.
Proof of service demonstrates electronic service on 4-24-24, which is insufficient because it fails to add 2 court days to the minimum notice period for service by such means. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1005(b), 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-22-001051 – ACOSTA, HECTOR O vs TURLOCK WALNUT COMOANY INC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED, to February 7, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
Having reviewed the supplemental declaration of the Settlement Administrator filed on May 8, 2024, this matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 7, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for a second supplemental declaration confirming the final turnover of unclaimed funds sent to the California State Controller’s Office. No appearance will be required if the Settlement Administrator’s second supplemental declaration is filed no later than January 31, 2025, and the declaration shows that turnover is complete.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-21-000695 – OSTRANDER, DALE vs ASHRAFZADEH, AMIN, MD – Defendant, Amin Ashrafzadeh MD’S Motion to Compel Deposition of Todd Allen Lefkowitz, M.D. and Request for Sanctions – GRANTED.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has unreasonably refused to produce his retained expert for deposition pursuant to a valid notice. Plaintiff has produced no authority compelling the Court to conclude that the continuance of the original trial date invalidated the parties’ designations of experts, which were exchanged in accordance with the statutory procedures set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.210 et seq. Therefore, absent Plaintiff’s decision to withdraw Dr. Lefkowitz as a retained expert, Defendant is entitled to proceed with the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.410.)
Counsel shall meet and confer to select an agreeable date for Dr. Lefkowitz’ deposition in accordance with the previous notice, to be completed no later than June 17, 2024.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED, as it is not set forth in the notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.)
CV-24-000414 – R, L vs TRUJILLO, DIANA LISSBETH HERNANDEZ – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas Issued to Connie’s Kozy Daycare; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,600.00 Against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel – GRANTED.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject records or a serious threatened intrusion of his privacy by the subject disclosure in the context of his pursuit of the instant lawsuit. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.) Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff can establish the above-described elements, Defendants have demonstrated that the subject discovery is directly relevant to the claims herein.
The Court further finds that Defendants are entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(j), 2023.030.) Therefore, the Court awards $940 in sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, payable to defense counsel.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-21-001337 – HANTASH, BASIL M, MD vs GUZMAN, MARIO TAMEZ – Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment – GRANTED.
The Court finds pursuant to the lease agreement entered into between the parties herein, as well as the declarations and evidence adduced in support of this motion that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of $130,329.63 and attorney’s fees of $1,000. ( Civ. Proc. Code §§ 585 (b) and (d).)
Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff for $130,329.63 and attorney’s fees of $1,000.
CV-22-003897 – TINOCO, REBECCA K vs VALADEZ, HUGO A – Defendant Hugo A. Valadez’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Void Judgment – GRANTED.
As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant with the statutorily required Statement of Damages prior to obtaining Defendant’s default on January 2, 2024, and the subsequent Default Judgement on January 21, 2024, said default and default judgment are invalid. ( Civ. Proc. Code § 425.11 ; Van Sickle v. Gilbert ( 2011), 196 Cal.App.4th 1495).
Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates Defendant’s default herein taken on January 2, 2024, and the Default Judgment of January 21, 2024. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (d)).
Defendant shall file his proposed Answer within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
A Case Management Conference is set for September 16, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
CV-23-000552 – CALZADA, DESIDERIO vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Defendant County of Stanislaus’ Motion for Summary Judgement –
CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
This matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to June 5th, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
CV-23-005389 – SARMIENTO, SYLVIA A vs AMERICAN HODNA MOTOR CO INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
The Court finds that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts. In that regard, in light of Defendant’s complaints that Plaintiff’s failed to engage in reasonable faith meet and confer, even though Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer correspondence for about a month before Plaintiff’s filed the instant motion, the Court finds that further meet and confer is required to narrow the parties’ discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. 4th 1006, 1016; Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8F-7).
Accordingly, the parties herein are hereby ordered to engage in further meet and confer. The Court expects that both parties will actively engage in this further meet and confer in good faith. The parties are reminded that “ a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.(Clement v. Alegre (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).
This matter is continued to June 14, 2024, at 8:30am in Department 24.
The parties shall provide a joint status statement regarding said further meet and confer at least five (5) court days before the next scheduled hearing date.
CV-24-000699 – WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SCHLICHT, DEBBIE – Defendants’ Anti-Slaap Motion – GRANTED.
The Court finds that Defendants have met their initial burden of demonstrating that the claims asserted against them arise out of protected activity, i.e. an “act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue which includes “a written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law”. (CCP §425.16(e); Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67; Brown v. Department of Corr., (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 520).
The Court further finds that Plaintiff has not proffered any admissible evidence demonstrating the probability that she will prevail on the merits of her alleged causes of action.( Baral v. Schnitt, (2016). 1 Cal. 5th 376, 396; Navellier v. Sletten, (2002), 29 Cal.4th at p. 88; Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal. 4th 1083, 1087.)
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be stricken pursuant to Code of Civil. Procedure §425.16.( Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67).
Consequently, the Court also finds Defendants entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party herein. (Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (c)(1); Catlin Insurance Company, Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc. (2022) 73 Cal. App. 5th 764).
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 19***