Tentative Ruling Announcement
October 30, 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 email@example.com 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:
684320 – GREWAL, MANDEEP VS. MELO, MONICA MARIE – Defendants Monica Marie Melo and Tony F. Melo and Sons Motion to Continue the Trial – HEARING REQUIRED.
2001900 – BOLING, TERESA VS. MODESTO PERINATAL ASSOCIATES – Defendants’ Demurrers to Second Amended Complaint – The demurrers of Defendants Frederic Feist, M.D. et al., to the Second Amended Complaint are OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part. Their first two demurrers are OVERRULED. Their third demurrer, to Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action, is SUSTAINED without leave to amend for failure to state a cause of action.
Their alleged duty of care in referring Plaintiff wife to the perinatal group arises from their performance of professional medical services to her, and so is subsumed in the third cause of action for professional negligence against them. The eighth cause of action for negligent referral is simply not independent of the third cause. The Court makes no finding as to whether there is an actionable tort for negligent referral.
Defendants brought their demurrers on behalf of all three of them together rather than each of them separately. Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action adequately pleads negligent concealment against Defendant Ways Medical Group.
Plaintiff Nick Boling’s seventh cause of action for loss of consortium arises from the same nexus of operative fact as his causes of action in the original Complaint.
2006309 – POMEROY, JESSICA VS. DOCTORS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH – a) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two b) Defendant Tenet Health System Medical Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One – The motions of Defendants Tenet Health System, et al., to compel responses to their first sets of form and special interrogatories, their second set of special interrogatories, their first set of requests for production, and their second set of requests for production, are GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall provide responses, without objection, on or before November 14, 2014.
Plaintiffs shall pay a sanction of $1,360.00 to Carolyn L. Katzorke, attorney for Defendants Tenet Health System, et al.
2010019 – ASHER, CHRISTOPHER VS. DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL – Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted, to Compel Responses and Request for Sanctions – The motion of Defendant City of Modesto to deem admitted the admission requests in its first set of requests for admission to Plaintiff, and to compel responses to its first sets of form interrogatories and production requests, is GRANTED.
The admission requests are deemed ADMITTED.
Plaintiff shall provide responses, without objection, to the interrogatories and production requests on or before November 14, 2014.
Plaintiff shall pay a sanction of $400.00 to Defendant City of Modesto’s counsel, Kevin E. Gilbert.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
2010738 – DOAN, KEVIN VS. SINGH, NIRMAL – Defendants Nirmal Singh, Chandi & Sons LLC and Turlock Petroleum Inc.’s Demurrer – Hearing of the demurrers by Defendants Nirmal Singh, et al, are CONTINUED to November 13, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22, for hearing with another motion.
2003647 – THE PEOPLE VS. CARDENAS, DEBBIE L. – Claimant’s Motion to Stay Forfeiture Proceedings Pending Related Criminal Matter – GRANTED.
2004197 – IVY, TEMESHA VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED to November 13, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. There is a printing legibility issue with one document.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall serve and file an amended opposing declaration on or before November 4, 2014, which is identical to the original, but more legible.
2011147 – HOLY APOSTOLIC ASSYRIAN CHURCH VS. TOOMBS, PAM –a) Defendants Tracee Storms and Kevin Storms’ Special Motion to Strike Amended Complaint b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief – The Court orders HEARINGS on the motion of Plaintiff Holy Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East for injunctive relief, and the special motion to strike by Defendants Kevin Storms, et al.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
2011461 – DOLE, MARVIN VS. JASO, CONSTANCE – Defendant Constance Jaso’s Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint - The Court VACATES the default entered on October 2, 2014, on its own motion.
The demurrer of Defendant Constance Jaso lodged on October 1, 2014, shall be FILED in the Court file and FILE-MARKED with a date stamp of October 1, 2014. Defendant’s fee waiver application was granted on October 1, 2014, and it was error to reject the filing of her demurrer that day.
The demurrer of Defendant Constance Jaso is OVERRULED. She shall serve and file her answer on or before November 4, 2014.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:
661102 – JONGSMA, GEORGE VS. WILLY CREEK RANCH – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to November 14, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The Court has not had a sufficient opportunity to conduct a meaningful review of the matter.
2000473 – CACH LLC VS. GARRITY, ROBERT – Plaintiff Cach LLC’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Stipulation for Entry of Judgment – GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court will enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. Therefore, judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $2,884.71, which includes $2,431.56 in principal, $60.00 filing fee for the motion, and $393.15 in attorneys’ fees calculated per the Local Rules. The Court notes that it cannot use the proposed judgment served with the pleadings and requests that Plaintiff serve a separate proposed judgment as soon as possible.