Stanislaus County Superior Court
Home  |  Tentative Rulings  |  Court Calendar  |  Jury Service  |  Forms  |  Español Search  Click to Search
Services & Resources

Appeals
Civil
Court Interpreters
Criminal
Family Law
Juvenile
Probate
Self Help
Small Claims
Traffic
Court Information

ADR Information
Case Index Lookup
Contact/Locations
Operating Hours
OnLine Options
Employment
Fee Schedule
General Information
Grand Jury
History
Holidays
Media
Press Releases
Public Information
Related Links
Vendor Resources
Rules of Court
Videos

Civil Tentative Ruling Announcement

Tentative Ruling Announcement

 

July 29, 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 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 3.21 (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 is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Department 21: 

 

 

2001790 – CABACUNGAN, JENNIFER VS. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH – Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved – GRANTED, as unopposed.  Based upon a review of the moving papers and in the absence of any opposition thereto and good cause shown therein, the motion is granted.  Moving counsel is hereby relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff Jennifer Cabacungan.  The order will become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the Order on Plaintiff Cabacungan.

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22: 

 

 

2008286 – LESLIE, LARRY M. VS. LAKEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION – Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint – The second Demurrer of Defendant Lakewood Homeowners Association is SUSTAINED for uncertainty.  Its first Demurrer is OVERRULED.

 

            Plaintiff has leave to serve and file a First Amended Complaint on or before August 15, 2014.

 

 

2004097 – PRECIADO, JUAN CARLOS VS. GOMEZ, FIDEL ROBERT – Intervenor Liberty Mutual Insurance’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention – GRANTED.   It shall serve and file its Complaint on or before August 15, 2014.

 

 

2004729 – SINGH, ROSELYN VS. COX, TIFFANY – Plaintiff Roselyn Singh’s Motion to File Amended Complaint – GRANTED.  She shall serve and file it on or before August 1, 2014.

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

 

 

2010030 – CURTIS, JUANITA VS. MILLER, TRINIDAD – Defendant Joshua Miller and Trinidad Miller’s Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint – OVERRULED.  They shall serve and file their answer on or before August 1, 2014.

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:

 

 

621192 – FIRESIDE BANK VS. NEWMAN, EDWARD – Defendant Edward E. Newman’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment – DENIED.  Upon review of the pleadings and the Court’s file, it is apparent that Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint in this matter on December 20, 2007, his default was entered on February 8, 2008 and a default judgment entered on February 14, 2008.  Defendant’s evidence submitted in support of his argument that he failed to receive actual notice of the lawsuit because he was incarcerated demonstrates that he was not incarcerated at the time of service of the Summons and Complaint.  Rather he was arrested and incarcerated in November 2011.  Defendant’s evidence regarding GAP insurance is irrelevant for two reasons – first, he does not indicate that he made a timely claim against the policy, and second, even if he did indicate a timely claim, he fails to allege that as a result of a claim the balance due on Plaintiff’s note was retired.

 

 

684277 – MAX, SHELLY VS. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE – Plaintiff Shelly Max’s Motion to Vacate: if any Orders Have Been Issued; Motion to Reconsider; as no Orders Have Been Issued; FRA Deemed Admitted; Motion to Renew - DENIED.  Upon review of the moving and opposing pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide good cause to set aside Judge Salter’s prior rulings in this case.  Judge Salter’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify him makes it absolutely clear that his reasons for disqualifying himself occurred after he made his rulings on the Defendants’ various motions.  See e.g. Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3.  Further, to the extent that the Plaintiff’s motion appears to be a motion for reconsideration of Judge Salter’s rulings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, it fails because Plaintiff does not provide “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” other than Judge Salter’s recent disqualification. The disqualification in and of itself is insufficient to support a motion for reconsideration.  Lastly, although the caption of Plaintiff’s motion appears to indicate a discovery motion might have been intended – the pleadings do not include points and authorities in support of such a motion, nor is there a declaration from Plaintiff in this regard.  The Court suspects that the inclusion of the discovery reference in the caption was an attempt to indicate Plaintiff was seeking relief with regard to Judge Salter’s ruling on her untimely discovery motion heard at the same time as the Defendants’ demurrers and special motions to strike.  To the extent this is the case, the Court has denied such relief as indicated herein.

 

 

684991 – EDWARDS, MICHAEL VS. STEVENS, BYRON DAVID - Plaintiffs Michael Edwards and Sarah Kaczynski f/k/a Sarah Mcnutt’s Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of Defendant Byron David Stevens - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to August 26, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.  The motion to compel is premature at this point, as Defendant has not failed to appear for the July 31, 2014, deposition, and counsel have failed to meet and confer in good faith on the issue of Defendant’s attendance. Pending the continued hearing date, counsel shall meet and confer, in good faith, on a mutually agreeable date for Defendant’s deposition.  If an agreement is reached counsel shall immediately inform the Court.

 

 

 

 

Last Updated: 07/28/2014 01:25:49 PM

Related Information:
Family_Law_Tentative_Rulings
Disclaimer  |  Privacy Statement  |  Feedback
Copyright © 2014 Stanislaus County Superior Court. All Rights Reserved.