Tentative Ruling Announcement
March 7, 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 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 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 are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Department 21:
622149 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. DHILLON, SINGH JASWINDER – Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED. Its moving separate statement of undisputed material facts and evidence show there are no triable disputes of material fact that the $28,355.00 in currency is subject to forfeiture.
675128 – EAGLETON, HEATHER VS. GONZALEZ, FERDY – a) Defendant’s Motions for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Costs and Expenses b) Defendant’s Motions for Order Compelling Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Costs and Expenses c) Defendant’s Motions for Order Compelling Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Costs and Expenses –
Heather Eagleton and Eddie Eagleton are the Plaintiffs in this matter. They seek damages for personal injuries from Ferdy Gonzalez and Efren Hernandez arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on May 10, 2010. There is one Complaint. Thereafter, on January 23, 2014, each Defendant separately filed and served separate notices of motions against each Plaintiff separately, to compel responses to request for production of documents, to compel responses to form interrogatories and to compel responses to special interrogatories. That amounts to 12 discovery motions. Defense counsel is also seeking sanctions on all 12 motions. The 12 motions could have been brought as 3 motions which would have been far more efficient for the Court. There is no opposition by counsel for Plaintiff except as to request for sanctions.
The Court will sign only one order, not 12 orders. The Court GRANTS the motions of Ferdy Gonzalez and Efren Hernandez against each Plaintiff to (1) compel answers to form interrogatories within 20 days of this order, (2) to compel answers to special interrogatories set number one, within 20 days of this order and (3) to compel responses to the requests for production of documents within 20 days of this date. Plaintiff shall also pay sanctions of $930.00 to the Defendants within 20 days of this order. The $930.00 covers all the 12 discovery motions filed.
Counsel for Defendant shall prepare the formal order.
680979 – HAWLEY, FRED VS. HAWLEY, RUSSELL – Defendant Newman Flange & Fitting Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to March 13, 2014 in Department 21 at 8:30 a.m.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
2002576 – DHALIWAL, HARPREET S VS. SINGH, NIRMAL – a) Defendants Nirmal Singh, Marc Robinson Esq., Robinson Bradford LLP, and Poulus and Poulus’ Demurrer b) Defendants Nirmal Singh, Marc Robinson Esq., Robinson Bradford LLP, and Poulus and Poulus’ Motion to Strike – Both a) and b) are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to March 21, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. The Court needs additional time to consider the parties’ pleadings and the impact of the multiple cases filed by Plaintiffs here in Stanislaus County (Cases No. 684071 and 2006390), in Orange County, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and in the Federal District Court. The Court notes that it did receive notice of the ruling on the Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication in Dhaliwal, et al. v. Singh, et al, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-at-00193, however, it has not had time to review same.
672076 – SOUTH SIDE PAWN SHOP VS. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICES – a) Cross Defendant & Cross Complainant M.J. Hall & Company Inc.’s Motion to Sever Trial of Cross Complainants b) Cross Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company’s Joinder in M.J. Hall & Company Inc.’s Motion to Sever Trial of Cross Complainants – a) GRANTED. The Court finds pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 598 and 1048(b) that severance of the
Cross Complaints will promote judicial efficiency and economy, and avoid significant prejudice to Cross Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company and Cross Complainant and Cross Defendant M.J. Hall & Company, Inc. b) GRANTED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Hurl W. Johnson in Department 23:
** There are no tentative rulings for Department 23**
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:
672152 – VAFADOUSTE, GHOLAMREZA VS. EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER – Plaintiff Gholamreza Vafadouste’s Motion for an Order Enforcing Further Compliance with the Subpoena Served on Charles Franc & Associates on February 1, 2013 – The Court finds that at least some of the documents withheld by Defendant might be necessary for Plaintiff to prove the elements of his action. Therefore, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer further on the issues raised by the motion. Pursuant to the Defendant’s suggestion, raised in its opposition to the motion at page 8, line 27 through page 9, line 4, and not opposed by Plaintiff’s counsel in reply, counsel for Defendant shall meet with counsel for Plaintiff and allow counsel for Plaintiff to review all of the withheld documents in order to identify those he feels are “necessary to support Plaintiff’s case”. If any of the so identified documents are challenged by Defendant, said documents shall be provided to the Court for an in camera review to determine whether they shall be produced pursuant to the Protective Order in place in this case. Counsel shall endeavor to complete their joint review of the documents by no later than March 21, 2014. If this “meet and confer” process results in complete resolution of the issues raised by this motion, the Court requests the parties notify it accordingly. If not, the Court will consider the documents submitted for in camera review as quickly as possible and notify the parties via minute order of its final decision.