April 25, 2018

A A A
Civil Tentative Ruling Announcement
Print

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 3.12 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.

April 25, 2018

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie S. Silveira in Department 21:

 

 

2028009 – EMPIRE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. GUERRA-COLE, NANCY – a) Empire Union School District’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint in the Form of a Petition for Writ of Mandate of Defendant Nancy Guerra-Cole – b) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Nancy Guerra-Cole’s Petition for Writ of Mandate - The Court intends to SUSTAIN Plaintiff Empire Union School District’s demurrers to Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Cross Complaint to the extent that the Cross-Complaint contains a “petition for writ of mandate”, as the Court believes this matter should proceed on the basis of the Complaint filed by the District pursuant to Education Code Section 44942, as well as Defendant’s Answer and Cross-Complaint thereto.  However, the Court will require a HEARING to discuss the next steps that should be taken to move the case toward resolution.

 

 

617890 – ANCHOR GENERAL VS. SHAW, ALLISEN ELAINE – Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Renewal of Judgment –GRANTED, and unopposed.  Plaintiff shall file the request and accompanying documentation not later than May 9, 2018.

 

 

2020929 – DAVIS, BRIAN VS. BANK OF AMERICA – Plaintiff Brian C. Davis’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three and Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to 8:30 a.m. on May 25, 2018, in Department 21.  The Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion to compel.  The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report with regard to their efforts not later than May 18, 2018.

 

 

9000294 – TANASESCU, MARIA VS. DUBEY MD, RAJESH – Defendant Sutter Central Valley Hospitals Motion to Dismiss Defendant Sutter Central Valley Hospitals from this Action Pursuant to§§ 2023.010(D)(3) -  CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 27, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.  Plaintiffs only recently received notice of the entry of the Court’s order requiring responses to the discovery and therefore dismissal of the defendant due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply seems premature at this point.  Plaintiff Ion Tanasescu is once again ordered to provide full and complete responses, without objection, to the Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on or about October 20, 2017. Plaintiff Maria Tanasescu is once again ordered to provide full and complete responses, without objection, to the Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on or about October 20, 2017.  Plaintiffs’ respective responses shall be provided to Defendant on or before May 16, 2018.  Plaintiffs’ failure to provide the Court-ordered responses may result in dismissal of the Defendant from this matter at the continued hearing on the Defendant’s motion on June 27, 2018.  Defendant shall file a (sur) Reply in support of the motion to update the Court on the status of the Plaintiffs’ discovery responses not later than June 20, 2018.

 

 

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

 

684866 – PATTERSON FROZEN FOODS VS. PATTERSON FROZEN VEGETABLE COMPANY – Defendant Patterson Vegetable CO.’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED. Patterson Vegetable Company, LLC, as the moving party, has met the burden of establishing a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary adjudication of the 20th Cause of Action contained in Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint, for Fraudulent Conveyance, on the basis that Plaintiffs cannot establish that the subject transfers caused them injury.  The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to submit admissible evidence which raises a triable issue of material fact.  Plaintiffs’ opposition sets forth no controverting admissible evidence on the required element of injury resulting from the alleged fraudulent transfers. Therefore, the material facts are undisputed and moving defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of the subject cause of action. Plaintiffs’ stated objections to the evidence submitted in the Declaration of Paul Fanelli are overruled. 

 

 

2201107 - IN THE MATTER OF THE OLIVER W. BENBOW TESTAMENTARY TRUST – a) Richard Benbow’s Motion to Compel Petitioner/Plaintiff William Benbow’s Further Responses to Discovery b) Richard Benbow’s Motion to Compel Respondent/Defendant Michael Reiff’s Further Responses to Discovery - a) Richard Benbow’s Motion to Compel Petitioner/Plaintiff William Benbow’s Further Responses to Discovery and b) Richard Benbow’s Motion to Compel Respondent/Defendant Michael Reiff’s Further Responses to Discovery:  Both motions to compel further responses are DENIED.  The Court does not read Probate Code Section 852 as authorizing discovery by an “interested person”; rather it appears that only parties to a proceeding may conduct discovery.  To the extent that Section 852 can be read as allowing for discovery by an “interested person” it does so in the context of that person requesting a “continuance” of a hearing in order to file a “response” and then conduct the discovery necessary to determine the applicable facts to support the response being filed. Section 852 does not authorize discovery in the absence of a “response.”

Although the case is not entirely similar, in Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 982-985, the trial court denied a trust beneficiary’s discovery requests because the beneficiary had not filed any “response or objections” to the trustees’ proposed accounting.  The Court there stated:  “Until (the beneficiary) actually filed objections, there was no contested proceeding that would require an assignment for trial and the conduct of discovery. The trustees' 1999 accounting, like those that preceded it, was simply a report to the court, necessary to the court's discharge of its duty of supervision of the management activities of the trustees. In the absence of specific objections to such report there is no way to determine what discovery, if any, was "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." As (the beneficiary) never tendered any issues, raised any issue requiring resolution or sought to become an actual party to a contested proceeding, the trial court was entirely justified in denying his request and approving the account.”

The Court also reviewed the case of Mota v. Superior Court (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 351, which did tangentially involve discussion of a Section 850 petition.  However, in Mota v. Superior Court, supra, the “interested person” had filed objections to a distribution petition and the issue was whether or not she was required to file a Section 850 proceeding.  What Forthmann, supra, and Mota, supra, have in common is that, in both instances, the Court’s decision turned at least in part upon whether or not the person seeking discovery was a “party” to the action.  

 

 

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:

 

2130043 – IN THE MEGANN SCOTT CASE – Petitioner’s Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights – GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds Petitioner has complied with the requirements for transfer of the identified payments pursuant to Insurance Code § 10139.5. Further, upon review of the terms of the proposed transfer, the Court finds such transfer to be in the best interests of transferor Megann Scott. The Court therefore approves the transfer and grants the relief as prayed for in the petition.

 

 

2130192 – TAYLOR, TYRONE T VS. PAC TRUCKING – Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate – DENIED, without prejudice. There is no proof of service contained in the Court’s file.

 

 

9000591 – KRAWCHUK, MATTIE VS. BERTOLOTTIS CERES DISPOSAL INC – Defendant Bertolotti’s Ceres Disposal, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint – GRANTED, and unopposed. The proposed cross-complaint should be filed not later than May 9, 2018.

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

 

 

**There are no tentative rulings for Department 19**