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
May 3, 2024
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-22-002218 – ROBLERO, REYNALDO vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Further Hearing on Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses – DROPPED, at the request of the parties.
The Court has received and reviewed the declaration. The Court anticipates that future references to experience levels and pay rates will be designed to give full and accurate information to the courts.
CV-22-004101 – TORIANO, JOE vs MUNOZ, HILDA – Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial Date – HEARING REQUIRED.
The 9:30 a.m. OSC and motion hearing is confirmed for in-person attendance.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-23-004078 – BOYKIN, REGINA vs DEL MONTE FOODS INC – (a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Seeking Plaintiff’s Business Records from Wright Equities Inc., for Monetary Sanctions against Defendant and/or its Attorneys of Record – DENIED, as moot; (b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Seeking Plaintiff’s Employment Records from Smithfield Packaged Meats, for Monetary Sanctions against Defendant and/or its Attorneys of Record – CONTINUED, to May 8, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22; (c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Seeking Plaintiff’s Employment Records from Brightline Management, LLC, for Monetary Sanctions against Defendant and/or its Attorneys of Record – CONTINUED, to May 8, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
(a)
As Plaintiff did not file a separate statement or supplemental declaration regarding the subpoena to Wright Equities, Inc., the Court surmises that the parties have informally resolved their dispute regarding this subpoena. The motion is therefore DENIED as moot.
(b) – (c)
These matters are continued on the Court’s own motion to May 8, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for further review and consideration.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-22-005822 – COMMUNITY EQUITY GROUP LLC vs ORTIZ, DANIEL JR – Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, Appointment of Discovery Referee & Monetary Sanctions for Abuse of the Discovery Process – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 25, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
The Court finds that the moving party demonstrated insufficient efforts to meet and confer with opposing counsel toward an informal resolution of the stated issues prior to submitting the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.420(a), 2025.480, 2016.040.) However, the opposition and reply papers demonstrate that meet-and-confer efforts conducted after submission have resulted in a tentative agreement which should resolve the issues presented herein.
Therefore, the hearing is continued for this purpose and the parties, through their counsel, are instructed to continue to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to finalize a satisfactory resolution of the issues related to the further deposition of Defendant Ortiz. If the parties’ efforts do not resolve the dispute prior to the date of the continued hearing, counsel shall submit a Joint Status Statement describing their efforts in this regard and advising the Court of the present status of the dispute no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.
Lastly, the parties and their counsel are reminded that civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.)
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-002302 – ROCHA, FERNANDO vs TRUJILLO, DIANA LISBBETH HERNANDEZ – a) Defendant, Edwin Jimenez’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (Neuropsychological) – GRANTED; b) Defendant, Ontrac Logistics, Inc’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (Neurological); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $984.15 against Plaintiff and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
(a)
There is no dispute between the parties as to Defendant’s entitlement to the requested discovery.
In the absence of demonstrated justification for said presence, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel is not entitled to be present for said Independent Medical Examination. (Golfland Entertainment Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 739; Vinson v. Superior Court (Peralta Community College Dist.) (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833; Edwards v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1976) 16 Cal.3d 905).
The Court may exercise its discretion to order Defendant to provide audio of said Independent Medical Examination and the raw data therefrom to Plaintiff. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of Kern County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818, review denied (Aug. 30, 2023); Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.530.) However, based on the signed statement of over 175 neuropsychologists submitted by Defendant, the Court finds that it would not be prudent to transmit said raw data to Plaintiff and declines to exercise its discretion to do so.
Based on Defendant’s offer to have said audio recording immediately placed into an express mail package, sealed, and sent directly to Dr. Kimberly Miller’s counterpart on Plaintiff’s side, Defendant is hereby ordered to proceed accordingly.
Accordingly, Defendant shall re-notice its Independent Medical Examination (neuropsychological) by Dr. Kimberly Miller, Ph.D. at 9:00 a.m. Workhub Work Health Services, 1501 Oakdale Road, Suite 301, Modesto, California 95355. Plaintiff’s Counsel shall not be present for said examination.
No sanctions are awarded against either party.
(b)
Due to Defendant Ontrac’s upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment, at Plaintiff’s request, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, this matter is continued to June 11, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
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***