August 17, 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.

August 17, 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:

 

 

CV-18-001535 – LOUMAR PROPERTIES VS. PRESTON, THOMAS R. - Petition for Judicial Declaration of Abandonment – HEARING REQUIRED.

 

Based on the petition and supporting documents, the Court finds that Petitioner has established entitlement to a judicial declaration of abandonment. (Civ. Code §798.61 et seq.)  If, at the time of the hearing, no party establishes an interest therein and tenders all past due rent and other charges as required by Civ. Code §798.61(d)(2), the Court shall enter judgment for  Petitioner in the amount of $14.17 per day from 3-1-18 to 8-17-18 and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs according to proof.

 

 

9000178 – MORRISON, ELIZABETH C. VS. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH - Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to September 28, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

 

The Court requires more time to review the motion.

 

 

684866 – PATTERSON FROZEN FOODS VS. PATTERSON VEGETABLE COMPANY - Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine Prevailing Party – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 4, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

 

The Court requires further briefing on the issue of whether the compromise underlying the stipulated judgment should reasonably be characterized as (1) a “mixed result” on the contract claims for purposes of determining attorney’s fees, and (2) a situation where PVC recovered “other than monetary relief” (Code Civ. Proc. §1032(a)(4)) for purposes of determining entitlement to costs.

 

Specifically, the Court requests that the parties address the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ relinquishment of their claims for declaratory relief under the 8th Cause of Action should be construed as a partial victory for PVC on the contract claims, as discussed in Marina Pacific Homeowners Assn v. Southern California Financial Corp. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 191.  The Court requests that the parties frame their respective arguments in terms of comparing the relief awarded each party on the contract claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, etc. (Hsu v. Abarra (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863.)

 

Toward that end, the Court requests that the parties submit supplemental briefing with regard to the above-described issues no later than September 20, 2018.  Such briefs shall be limited to 10 pages, excluding exhibits.  The Court will issue a tentative ruling on October 3, 2018.

 

 

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:

 

 

CV-18-001570 – IN RE:  A.M. - A. Ralo, LLC’s Petition for Approval of Transfer of Payment Rights— GRANTED and unopposed.

The Court finds that the filing and service requirements of Ins. Code §10139.5(f)(2) have been satisfied. The Court further finds that all mandatory topics required by Insurance Code §10139.5(c)(1)-(6) are addressed in the petition and supporting declarations and exhibits. Finally, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds the proposed transaction is “fair and reasonable and in the best interest” of the Transferor.  (Ins. C. §10137.)

 

 

CV-18-000200 – IN RE:  545 INAUDI CT, PATTERSON, CA  95363 - Petition re: Surplus Funds is DENIED, without prejudice.  The Court received one claim to the funds from legal counsel purportedly representing Mr. Rafael H. Rios.  The claim indicates that Ms. Patricia L. Rios – the former co-owner of the property – is deceased and that Mr. Rios is therefore the only remaining former owner.  The claim further indicates that Mr. Rios is the only person entitled to make a claim as to the property – but does not discuss the disposition of Ms. Rios’s estate and the possibility of other heirs, etc.  This uncertainty was the exact reason the trustee determined a need to deposit these surplus funds with the Court in the first place.  For the Court to issue an Order granting Mr. Rios’s claim, he must first prove that he is who he says he is – counsel’s inarticulate verification of that fact is insufficient.  A declaration from Mr. Rios under penalty of perjury attaching a certified copy of his marriage certificate would be sufficient to demonstrate this fact. Mr. Rios must also demonstrate that Ms. Rios is actually deceased, via reference to a certified copy of her death certificate. Further, Mr. Rios must demonstrate that he is the only person who has a “right” to the surplus funds – there is no Probate action involving Ms. Rios’s estate, etc.  After the previous hearing on July 20, 2018, the Court provided Mr. Rios with time to correct the deficiencies in his claim and continued the matter to this date.  The Court required Mr. Rios to submit proper documentation of his claim not later than August 9, 2018,in order for the Court to have time to review it prior to this continued hearing date.  As of the date of the Court’s review, August 14, 2018, Mr. Rios has failed to submit any additional documentation.  Therefore, based on all of the information contained in the Court’s file at this time, Mr. Rios’ claim is denied, without prejudice to renewal.  The current claim is legally insufficient and poorly documented, thus it cannot serve as a valid basis for an order distributing the funds to Mr. Rios under Civil Code section 2923(k) or 2924j.

 

 

662672 – NODULSKI, DEBBIE VS. VARGAS, ANTHONY - Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate – is GRANTED.  The Court has the discretion to order a bifurcated trial in this matter under Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 1048(b) on grounds of, among other things, justice, efficiency, convenience, expedience and economy, and/or the avoidance of prejudice.  Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Court is convinced that bifurcation may result in efficiency, expedience, and economy and therefore believes bifurcation of the issue of liability from the issue of damages is appropriate.

 

 

2011141 – DAY, MATTHEW VS. MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPMENT INC - Defendant Builders’ Service Group’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery appears to be moot due to the Notice of Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Main Action filed by the Plaintiffs on August 9, 2018.  Therefore, the Court will DROP the motion unless notified otherwise by the moving party.

 

 

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***