October 23, 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.

October 24, 2018

 

 

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

 

 

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 21***

 

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

 

 

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 22***

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

 

 

2020574 – NEMITZ, PATRICIA VS. ROGERS, JOHN – Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or in the Alternative, Tax Defendant – GRANTED, in part. The Court notes that Defendant has voluntarily reduced the total amount of claimed costs to $35,026.34.  Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating that certain of the costs claimed are unrecoverable under Code of Civ. Proc. §998 and/or Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, or that certain claimed costs are excessive and/or unreasonable, such that the burden shifts to Defendant to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.  (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131; Oak Grove School Dist. V. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698.)  The Court further finds that Defendant has offered adequate substantiation as to certain of the challenged costs but has failed to offer adequate substantiation as to other challenged costs.  The Court acts within its discretion in determining whether costs are excessive and should be reduced.  (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816-817.)

 

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s claimed costs should be taxed as follows:

 

The costs claimed in Item #8 (Expert Witness Fees) should be taxed in the amount of $9,031.25.  Specifically, the Court has disallowed the undated “review” fees charged by Dr. Ghalambor in the amount of $5,031.25 and the cancellation fee charged by Dr. Rashid in the amount of $4,000.

 

The costs claimed in Item #13 (Other) should be taxed in the amount of $5,900.20.

Specifically, the Court has disallowed $150 in connection with the cost of duplicate records subpoenas; $3,450 in connection with the cost of surveillance performed by DigiStream Central Valley, Inc.; and $1,800 in connection with mediation fees.  With regard to the latter 2 items, the Court finds that they are not expressly recoverable under Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5 and Defendant has offered no authority to the contrary or substantiation of the claimed items which would justify the exercise of the Court’s discretion to allow them under Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c).

 

Therefore, the revised amount claimed by Defendant shall be reduced by $14,931.45, for a total cost award of $20,094.89.  The clerk shall enter the cost award on the judgment in this matter. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700(b)(4).)

 

 

2026354 – DYE, BREANNA VS. ARAKELIAN, STEPHEN – Defendants’ Motion to Deem Matter Complex - DENIED, without prejudice. The motion is procedurally defective in that it consists only of a notice, which does not comply with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1110(d).  Moreover, the motion is not supported by points and authorities or relevant evidence (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 3.1110, 3.1112 and 3.1113.)  As such, Defendants have made no showing as to the factors set forth in Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.400 with regard to complex case designation.

 

 

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

 

 

2006943 – CAMPBELL, JARED VS. GARCIA, ANTHONY – Defendant Antonio Garcia’s Demurrer to Complaint – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to November 29, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. Counsel are directed to meet and confer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Defendant’s counsel shall file a supplemental declaration in support of the demurrer detailing the results of the meet and confer process. Additionally, the Court requests supplemental briefing from the parties as to the effect, if any, of Defendant Jose Garcia’s Answer to the Complaint, filed on July 18, 2014, in which he names Defendant Antonio Garcia as the “owner” of the ATV. Defendant Antonio Garcia’s supplemental meet and confer declaration shall be due not later than November 16, 2018. The parties’ supplemental briefs on the effect, if any, of Defendant Jose Garcia’s Answer to the Complaint, shall be no longer than five (5) pages each and shall also be due not later than November 16, 2018.

 

 

2027563 – RASUL KABIR VS. BHUIYAN, MOHAMMAD M. – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Mohammad Bhuiyan’s Attendance at Deposition b)  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Mohammad Bhuiyan and Mosammat Akter’s Discovery Responses – a) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed. Based on a review of the moving papers, and in the absence of any opposition, the  Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to notice the deposition of Defendant Mohammad Bhuiyan and Defendant Bhuiyan is required to appear for the deposition, absent a valid and timely written objection or protective order from the Court. Defendant Bhuiyan has failed to make a timely objection or move for a protective order. Therefore, Defendant Mohammad Bhuiyan is directed to appear for his deposition as requested in the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel shall attempt to meet and confer with Defendant Bhuiyan to select a mutually acceptable date and time, however, if Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to do so, the deposition date and time may be scheduled without Defendant Bhuiyan’s input. Said deposition shall be held and concluded prior to the next Case Management Conference which is set for January 7, 2019. Plaintiff’s request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED because Defendant Bhuyian did not oppose the motion to compel his appearance at deposition. b) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed. Defendants Mohammad Bhuiyan and Mosammat Akter are ordered to provide full and complete  responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents served on them (via counsel) by Plaintiff in January 2018. The defendants’ responses are due not later than November 14, 2018. Plaintiff’s request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED because Defendants did not oppose the motion to compel their responses to discovery.

 

 

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***