November 21, 2017

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 3.21 (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. 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.

November 21, 2017

 

 

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 Timothy W. Salter 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:

 

 

***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:

 

 

677740 – IELMINI, JOYCE VS. IELMINI, ANGELO – Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and/or to Vacate a Portion of the Court’s Ruling Regarding Hearing of August 16, 2017 - GRANTED.  Initially, Plaintiffs are entitled to clarification regarding a portion of the ruling on the Entity Defendants’ Objection to and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Submission of Undisclosed Experts in Plaintiffs’ Valuation Brief to Appraisers, and the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Strike and/or for Supplemental Instructions to the Appraisers, which was entered on August 22, 2017. The Court’s order contained the following reference: “The defendants’ motion to strike references to Arlusa in the plaintiffs’ evaluation brief is granted, as the court has bifurcated all issues related to Arlusa.” (Emphasis added.)  To clarify, this Court deduces that Judge Mayhew did not intend to bifurcate the valuation of plaintiffs’ shares in Arlusa from the underlying Corporations Code section 2000 valuation proceeding. He only intended to reiterate its prior determinations that the legal validity and value, if any, of Plaintiffs’ “direct” claims against the Individual Defendants with respect to the sale of Arlusa are issues which will be determined after the valuation proceeding has concluded.  Upon further review of the Court’s file in this matter, it is clear from the record in this case that Judge Mayhew recognized the distinction between “derivative” and “direct” claims vis-à-vis the Corporations Code section 2000 special proceeding. The language contained in the August 16, 2017, Ruling does not appear to have been intended to prohibit the appraisers from considering the value of Arlusa – instead it appears to have been an attempt to reiterate (unsuccessfully) the Court’s consistent approach to a determination of the Plaintiffs’ “direct” claims. In fact, legally it appears that the appraisers are required to determine the value of the Arlusa shares pursuant to the authority of Cotton v. Expo Power Systems, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1371.

The Court notes that Judge Salter signed a “Supplemental Instruction to Appraisers” on September 11, 2017 on behalf of Judge Mayhew who retired from the bench in September 2017. Therefore, to the extent that the Court’s Order regarding the August 16, 2017, hearing appears to provide something different – it is hereby clarified.

 

Parenthetically, a threshold issue for this Court’s determination is which legal vehicle/procedure can or must the Court utilize, if any, to “clarify” or to “vacate a portion of the Court’s August 16, 2017 Ruling”?

 

Assuming a hearing will be requested on the motion, Counsel shall be prepared to address the issues therein as follows:

  • Should the Court treat the motion as one for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008?  If so, was the motion timely filed?  If so, have the prerequisites of the statute been complied with?

  • Should the Court, on its own motion, rule based on the authority of Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094?  Such authority and its progeny allow a judge to change a ruling/decision if he/she believes it to be incorrect as long as any change is based upon the same law and facts and prior to entry of judgment.  Because this judge did not render the August 16, 2017 Ruling is Le Francois, and subsequent authority nevertheless applicable?

  • Is a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 663 and 663a available to moving party although no judgment has been entered?

 

2012621 – MUNOZ, DAVID VS. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - CONTINUED at the request of plaintiffs’ counsel to Tuesday, December 19, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

 

 

2019631 – NORRUP, KARA VS. CITY OF PATTERSON – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Lori Burgos’ Attendance at Deposition - DENIED, at this time.  Based on the court’s review of the pleadings, the discovery dispute between the parties resulted in justifiable delay.  Further, it appears the parties have now made progress toward setting defendant’s deposition and compelling the deposition would be inappropriate under the circumstances.  Additionally, the request for an award of sanctions is denied, as it would be unjust under the circumstances.

 

 

2024803 – TSANG, ABIES VS. GONI, JUAN CARLOS – Defendant County Records Research, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Default - GRANTED, and unopposed because the parties have stipulated the default entered by the Court on June 29, 2017 be VACATED and SET ASIDE and the Court has signed the proposed order.  Defendant County Records Research, Inc. shall file its proposed Notice of Non-Monetary Interest pursuant to Civil Code section 29241 not later than November 28, 2017.

 

 

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***