May 9, 2024

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

*** There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 21***

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

CV-22-001046 – THORNBERRY, KENNETH L vs STANISLAUS COUNTY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees – CONTINUED, to May 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to Wednesday, May 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration by the Court.

CV-24-000461 – CRON, VANESSA G vs REEVES, HARDY L III – Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs - CONTINUED, to May 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to Wednesday, May 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration by the Court.

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

CV-21-005110 – NOGHLI, TELLY vs NOGHLY, ALBERT – Defendants Joann Dickinson and Joann Dickinson Homes Inc’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint – OVERRULED.

The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support the subject claims at the pleading stage. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)  Moreover, the Court notes that the moving defendants’ arguments appear to require an examination of extrinsic evidence, which is improper on demurrer.

CV-23-003350 – MANCILLA, GUADALUPE LARIOS DE vs NARAGHI FARMS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 2, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-18-001309 – CERNA, JULIO vs L&K ENTERPROSES INC – Judgment & Objections – HEARING REQUIRED.

Upon review of the parties’ briefing and the relevant authority, the Court is inclined to find that there is uncertainty with regard to the Plaintiffs’ purported “allocation” of 100% of the settlement proceeds between Plaintiffs and Hisun to Plaintiff Julio Cerna’s claims alone. The settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and Hisun does not support the conclusion that 100% of the settlement proceeds were allocated to Plaintiff Julio Cerna’s claims.  While the Court OVERRULES Defendant L&K Enterprises, Inc. dba B2B Truck Sales’s objections to them, the declarations of the various parties submitted after the fact also do not lead the Court to conclude as much.  

Where the allocation of settlement proceeds is uncertain or unclear such that the Court may consider the proceeds “unallocated”, the Court does not believe it is bound by the parties’ settlement agreement or earlier representations with regard to the allocation and therefore the amount of credit to which the nonsettling defendants are entitled. (Greathouse v. Amcord, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 831, 841; see also Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 990, 1009 [allocation affecting setoff nonsettling defendants will receive against future judgment may not be given presumptive effect unless it was the product of adverse negotiation]). Furthermore, even when such settlement allocations are approved by the court after a good faith settlement hearing, they are not binding on the trial court. (See Gouvis Engineering v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 642, 651.)

Given the fact that the Court does not consider itself bound by the purported 100% allocation of the proceeds of the settlement between Hisun and Plaintiffs to Plaintiff Julio Cerna’s claim, it concludes that the nonsettling defendant L&K Enterprises Inc. dba B2B Truck Sales is entitled to a setoff in the full amount of $10,000,000.00 as set forth in the proposed judgment provided by L&K Enterprises Inc. dba B2B Truck Sales. 

The Court notes it disagrees with L&K Enterprises Inc. dba B2B Truck Sales with respect to the damages awarded by the jury regarding L&K Enterprises Inc. dba B2B Truck Sales’s fraudulent conduct and finds that those damages – in the amount of $3,032.00 – shall not be setoff by the settlement between Hisun and Plaintiffs.

CV-19-004066 – SIANEZ, LARISSA vs EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Larissa Sianez to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Number One - GRANTED and unopposed.

The Court notes Plaintiff acknowledges Defendant’s entitlement to the requested discovery, does not oppose the motion and undertakes to answer said discovery in full.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide substantive discovery responses to the Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within three (3) weeks of the date of this order.

CV-23-000046 – CARVER, STEPHANIE vs SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS – Defendant Mohammad Aamir Akmal, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment - This motion was WITHDRAWN by the moving party on May 1, 2024.

CV-23-003694 – BUSTOS, DIOCELINA vs MODESTO RADIOLOGY IMAGING INC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 2.6 - GRANTED.

The test of relevance in discovery proceedings is broad and under the Legislature’s very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy, any doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (CCP §2017.010; Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531).

Furthermore, for discovery purposes, evidence is “relevant” ” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement; admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.  (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002), 96 Cal.App.4th 443, rehearing denied, review denied).

Additionally, asserting that an interrogating party is “conducting a fishing expedition is generally not valid grounds for objecting to Interrogatories.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Clay) 56 Cal.2d at 384).

Accordingly. the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to responses to the requested discovery.

Plaintiff shall provide an objection free verified response to the requested discovery within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(1)(b)).

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-23-001437 – YAZDI, AMINIAN vs GARCIA, JUAN – Motion to Strike All 3 Claims of Possession and Answers – HEARING REQUIRED.