July 22, 2019

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.

July 23, 2019

 

 

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:

 

 

CV-19-002252 – DABBLICIOUS, INC. VS. JDI FARMS, INC. – Plaintiff Dabblicious Inc.’s Demurrer to Defendant JDI Farms, Inc. and Daron Silva’s Cross-Complaint – OVERRULED.

 

Dabblicious, Inc. attacks the first, second and fifth causes of action in the cross-complaint on the ground that JDI Farms, Inc. (JDI) is trying to enforce oral promises that are barred by the integration clause in the processing agreement.  The Court overrules the Demurrer to these causes of action because JDI alleges not just that Dabblicious may have breached oral agreements, but also that it beached the contract itself by failing to conduct batch testing and allow remediation as allegedly required by industry standards.  Dabblicious’s attack on the third cause of action for fraud fails because, although JDI did not provide the name of the employee who met with its representative to discuss the processing agreement, it gave a month, year and location for the meeting.  Because “the requirement of specificity is relaxed when the allegations indicate that ‘the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy’ [Citation] or ‘when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party[]’ ” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159), the cause of action for fraud is sufficiently specific.  The Demurrer’s final contention is that the economic loss rule bars JDI from asserting a cause of action for negligence because its damages are primarily contract-based.  The Court notes, however, that Dabblicious simultaneously argues that JDI has failed to state any claim that is based on the relevant contract.  The Court will allow JDI to plead alternate theories, one in tort and one in contract, at this stage of litigation, even if the economic loss rule may become relevant at a later juncture.  .  (See, e.g., Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 691 [“The Plaintiff remains free to allege any and all “inconsistent counts” that a reasonable attorney would find legally tenable on the basis of the facts known to the Plaintiff at the time.”]) 

 

 

2009158 - CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT VS. SWANGER, STEVEN A. – Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and to Compel Responses to Deposition Subpoena with Document Production – DENIED.

 

The Court finds no proof of service of the motion.

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

 

 

9000704 - PAINTER, JOHN VS. AMIN, SEAN A – Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Judgment – DENIED.

 

The Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); Weisenburg v. Molina (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 478, 48.)

 

 

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

 

 

2020283 - MOPPIN, ANDREA VS. FASTAFF LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Conditional Certification – DENIED, without prejudice.

 

The motion was served with insufficient notice. Specifically, service by overnight mail requires that 2 additional calendar days’ notice be provided. (Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).) While the Court notes that the moving papers and settlement agreement represent that the defense does not intend to oppose this matter, the Court has no basis to presume the same is true of the intervenor herein.

 

 

CV-18-003653 – KELSTIN GROUP INC. VS. MANZO, CHRISTIAN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute the stated COA against the Defendant and the Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (CCP §438(c)(1)(A).)

 

 

CV-18-004045 – ABOTT, MELISSA VS. ALGHAZZI, WISSAM A. – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – DENIED, without prejudice.

 

The moving defendant has failed to submit proof that notice of the instant motion was served, as the proofs of service accompanying the motion do not identify any parties.  Moreover, there is no evidence in the Court’s file that notice of the rescheduled hearing date was served. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that proper notice of this matter was given.

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

 

 

UD-19-000830 – BOSIO, RICHARD VS. BOSIO, GINA – Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Entry if Default – HEARING REQUIRED.