Tentative Ruling Announcement
October 22, 2014
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, COURT CALL MUST be notified AND the Clerk’s Office MUST also be notified before 4:00 p.m. TODAY.
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 firstname.lastname@example.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 3.21 (b) 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 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 William A. Mayhew in Department 21:
2003154 – SARKIS, ANTHONY VS. WELLS FARGO BANK – a) Defendants Wells Fargo Bank and Federal National Mortgage’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint b) Defendant Ndex West LLC’s Joinder to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank NA’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Verified Complaint c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Demurrer and Joinder -
a) SUSTAINED in its entirety for failure to state a cause of action against the Defendant. Plaintiff has leave to amend his Complaint one last time. Said amendment shall be filed not later than November 12, 2014.
c) DENIED. An untimely demurrer may be considered by the Court in its discretion. Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App. 4th 742. Even the authority cited by Plaintiff indicates that the Court “may” consider a late demurrer. See e.g. Buck v. Morrossis (1952) 114 Cal. App. 2d 461.
2004548 – MILLER, TAMMI VS. CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Upon review of the motion the Court finds that the Plaintiff has already provided responses to the discovery, but has failed to verify the responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.250(a), 2031.250(a). As an unverified response is tantamount to no response at all, the Court is compelled to grant the Defendant’s motion. However, sanctions in this case seem unwarranted given what appears to be Plaintiff’s good faith attempt to comply with the discovery statute. Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with verifications regarding her responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One not later than November 5, 2014.
683889 – ALLUSTIARTI, RAYMOND VS. GALLETTO LLC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production Requests and for Production of Documents – GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve full and complete verified responses to the discovery at issue not later than November 12, 2014. The Court notes that Plaintiff has served unverified amended responses as of October 8, 2014. Essentially, this is an admission that the original responses were deficient. However, to the extent that the Defendant seems to seek the Court’s determination of the sufficiency of the amended responses, that issue is not properly before the Court.
684320 – GREWAL, MANDEEP VS. MELO, MONICA MARIE – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance and Further Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production – GRANTED. As it appears by Defendants’ response to this motion that they simply needed more time to comply with the Plaintiffs’ requests, Defendants shall produce further, verified responses as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Reply filed with the Court on October 15, 2014. Defendants shall provide full and complete verified responses to the discovery requests remaining at issue as set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Reply not later than October 27, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. To be clear, Defendants shall provide verifications as to all discovery responses served on Plaintiffs, inclusive of the responses still “at issue” pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ Reply.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
2002246 – CAPITAL ONE BANK VS. LEONETTI, MARK A. – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery, Order for the Genuineness of Documents and Truth of Matters Asserted – DENIED. There is no proof of service while the motion does not identify the discovery at issue by type of discovery or set number. Rule 3.1345(d) of the California Rules of Court.
2003767 – STREETLINKS VS. KALANTA, WILLIAM – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment – DENIED.
2010868 – IN RE: 329 E STREET, EMPIRE CA 95319 – Hearing on Deposited Surplus Funds from Trustee’s Sale – HEARING REQUIRED.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
684692 – PARKER, JANDIE VS. MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER – Defendant Mark Towns, MD’s Motion for Summary Judgment - CONTINUED to October 29, 2014 in Department 23 at 8:30 a.m. , for hearing with another unopposed summary judgment motion.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:
2003153 – STONE, CHRISTOPHER M VS. JOHNSON PHD, DEBRA A. – Plaintiff Christopher M. Stone’s Motion to Bifurcate Issues of Hearing on 10/23/2014 to Two Hearings – DENIED. As the Court has already stated, the two motions on calendar on October 23, 2014 - Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s order striking his Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs can be, and will be, considered separately and in the appropriate order. Further delay in hearing the Defendant’s motion is not warranted under the circumstances.
2003752 – MURPHY, ANTHONY VS. LAKE TULLOCK BOAT – Cross-Complainants Lake Tulloch Boat Rental LLC and Michael A. Kinsley’s Motion for Summary Adjudication – DROPPED at the request of the moving party pursuant to a telephone call to the Clerk’s Office on Thursday, October 16, 2014.
2004313 – MORENO, JON VS. TOPIE, ROBERT – Cross Defendants Jon Moreno and Eliane Moreno’s Demurrer to Second Amended Cross Complaint – – OVERRULED. The Second Amended Cross-Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action regarding the remaining necessity for the easement in question, and the language of the deed conveying easement is, itself, ambiguous as to the grantee’s intent to create an easement by necessity. Cross-Defendants shall file an answer to the Cross-Complaint not later than November 5, 2014.
2007283 – FIA CARD VS. PELAYO, EDELMIRA – Plaintiff FIA Card Services, N.A.’s Motion for Judgment on Pleadings – GRANTED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have and recover from Defendant Edelmira S. Pelayo the principal sum of $2506.15 and Court costs of $344.00 for a total judgment in the sum of $2850.15.