June 25, 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.

June 26, 2019

 

 

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

 

 

CV-18-004320 – SERPA, HELIO VS. AREVALO, JO ANN – Defendant’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and Waiver of Objections and for Sanctions – APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

 

The court intends to hear argument on the discovery motion scheduled for June 26, 2019, as well as the discovery motion scheduled for July 3, 2019.

 

 

CV-19-000036 – ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC – Intervenor Shelbee Sleeman’s Motion to Intervene in Action – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

 

2029058 – SOSA, SERGIO G. VS. LAW OFFICE OF MINA RAMIREZ – Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena – MOOT.

 

The court notes that one of the deponents responded that it has no records to produce and the other subpoena has been withdrawn.  The court therefore deems the motion to quash the subpoenas to be moot.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

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

 

 

CV-18-004005 – MURPHY, TOM VS. USX LOGISTICS – Application of Attorney Kevin M. Capuzzi for Admission Pro Hac Vice as Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc. – APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

 

The court calculates service of the application for appearance pro hac vice to be ineffective because counsel only provided 15 court days’ notice.  In addition, the court notes counsel has made multiple applications for pro hac vice admission in California since 2028.  (Cal. Rules of court, rule 9.40(b).)

 

 

PR-18-000108 – IN THE MATTER OF LENA O. MCDONOUGH TRUST – Successor Trustee/Respondent Deanna L. Lyon’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions – APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

 

 

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

 

 

2027535 – GEVERGIS, NAHRIN VS. WALMART STORES, INC. – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED to August 30, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties.

 

 

CV-18-002095 – BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE VS. SOTO, JAVIER LAGARDE – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings– GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

Based on the information submitted in the moving and supporting papers, and in view of the Court’s previous order deeming matters admitted herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant, while Defendant's answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.  (Code Civ. Proc. §438(c)(1)(A).) 

 

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

 

 

CV-19-000280 – GREVEMBERG, NEIL A. VS. SALES, VALERIE – Defendant Valerie Sales’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (as to Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action) – SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

 

Based on the matters set forth in Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice herein, the Court finds that the alleged conduct giving rise to the Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action is privileged as set forth in Civ. Code  §47(b).  The Court further finds that the marital dissolution exception” set forth in Civ. Code §47(b)(1) does not apply, as the subject “allegation or averment” concerning BEST was made by an officer of the court under penalty of perjury and appeared on its face to be relevant and material to the issues in the matter wherein it was made. Therefore, the First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the subject causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e).)

 

Due to the application of the privilege, it does not appear that Plaintiff can amend the pleading to state a viable cause of action arising out of Defendant’s alleged conduct in the family law case. Moreover, it is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate how the pleading could be amended, and Plaintiff has made no such showing herein.

 

 

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

 

 

2025471 – CLARK, LINDA VS. ALVAREZ, DAVID – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions against Defendant, David Alvarez – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

With regard to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court finds that Defendant David Alvarez has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant shall provide answers, without objection, within 14 days of service of notice of entry of the order. 

 

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with Defendant’s failure to respond to the above-described discovery requests.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).)  Therefore, Defendant David Alvarez is ordered to pay $185.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days of service of notice of entry of the order.

 

b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions against Defendant, David Alvarez– GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

With regard to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court finds that Defendant David Alvarez has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant shall provide answers, without objection, within 14 days of service of notice of entry of the order. 

 

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with Defendant’s failure to respond to the above-described discovery requests.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).)  Therefore, Defendant David Alvarez is ordered to pay $185.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days of service of notice of entry of the order.

 

 

CV-19-002109 – GADIS, JERMAINE VS. RADINO, GENE – a) Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages, b) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint –

 

a) and b) – Both matters are DROPPED, as MOOT, in view of Plaintiffs’ submission of their First Amended Complaint on 6-13-19.

 

 

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***