Tentative Ruling Announcement
April 24, 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, COURTCALL 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 Court3.21 (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. No Staff Reporters will be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Department 22 -- Tuesdays and Thursdays only. No Staff Reporters will be available on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Department 23 -- Wednesdays and Fridays only. No Staff Reporters will be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Department 24 -- Tuesdays and Thursdays only. No Staff Reporters will be available on Wednesdays or Fridays.
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:
675570 – CORONA, JUAN VS. ARMENTA, RAFAEL – Defendant Bertha A. Armenta’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum Regarding Order to Appear for Examination – DROPPED at the request of the moving party pursuant to a telephone call to the Clerk’s office on Friday, April 18, 2014.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
2003507 – LEE, TYRONE VS. SUTTER HEALTH – Defendant Sutter Health’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to April 29, 2014, for hearing with other motions.
2004156 – FARRIS, DANNY VS. DOVOLIS, JOHN – Plaintiff Danny Farris’ Motion for Trial Setting Preference Under Code of Civil Procedure § 36 – The Motion of Plaintiff Danny Farris for trial preference is DENIED. There is no proof that the moving party meets the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 36.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
** There are no tentative rulings for Department 23**
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:
680381 – NORTH MODESTO GROUNDWATER VS. CITY OF MODESTO – Respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the Writ Dismissing Case as Moot and to Dissolve or Modify Preliminary Injunction – DENIED. The matter is not moot. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider the Petitioner’s request for a peremptory writ of mandate. Nor would it be appropriate at this juncture to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction. Should a peremptory writ issue, the Court can fashion its order to make clear that Respondents’ compliance with the writ shall not result in a violation of the injunction.
2004312 – ROBBINS, BARBARA VS. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE – Defendants GHC of Modesto LLC and Derek Conover’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration – The Petition to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The Court finds there is neither procedural nor substantive unconscionability in the arbitration agreement. (Armendariz vs. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83,106).
2004953 – CORTES, DENISE VS. BUHLER, RONALD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate– DENIED. No good cause has been shown and the Defendant in the civil action and the Plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action would incur undue prejudice if the motion was granted.