April 18, 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.

Amended April 18, 2019

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Marie S. Silveira in Department 21:

 

 

CV-18-003036 – OLIVASESPANA, ANA ROSA VS. PUGLISI, MARIA CAROLINA – Motion to be relieved as Plaintiff’s Counsel – GRANTED.

 

An attorney may withdraw without cause as long as the withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interest.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  The Court’s discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably.  (Mandell v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1.)

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that the attorney in an action may be changed at any time before or after judgment upon the order of the Court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.  Counsel provided sufficient notice to the client pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

 

Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court provides that a motion to withdraw must be accompanied by a declaration and an order granting the motion to be relieved as counsel.  Plaintiff’s counsel likewise complied with these requirements. 

 

Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

 

 

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

 

 

2014325 – INZANA, ANTHONY VS. TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT – Motion to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Anthony F. Inzana, II – GRANTED, conditionally.

 

The effective date of the order relieving counsel shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client has been filed with the Court.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)  This order shall have no effect on moving counsel’s representation of the client as counsel of record on appeal.

 

 

2018190 – TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. INZANA II, ANTHONY F – a) Motion to be relieved as Counsel for Defendant Anthony F. Inzana, II b) Motion to be relieved as Counsel for Defendant Joyce Inzana GRANTED, conditionally.

 

The effective date of the order relieving counsel shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client has been filed with the Court.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)  This order shall have no effect on moving counsel’s representation of the client as counsel of record on appeal.

 

 

9000757 – BEL, DEANNA VS. CHUM, RINA – Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Default Pursuant to CCP §473 and §473.5 – GRANTED.

 

The Court finds that Defendant has made a credible showing of lack of notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, including as to the notice of the entry of default, making the motion timely filed.  Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying the remedial statutes must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.  (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233; Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 5-G, § 5:401.)  The Court further finds that relief from entry of default will result in no demonstrable prejudice to Plaintiff.  (Elston, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 233; Fasuyi, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 696 [“very slight evidence” required to set aside where prejudice is absent].)  Accordingly, the default is hereby set aside and Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within fifteen (15) days of this Order.  The hearing for default prove-up is consequently vacated as moot.

 

 

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

 

 

2016027 – JONES, LARRY VS. J C WILLIAMS COMPANY – Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Special Master – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Defendant.

 

 

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

 

 

2018931 – MAO, DAVID VS. CIAROLLA, KARLA ANN – Defendant Karla Ann Ciarolla’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff Rosalinda Palomo – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct in repeatedly failing to comply with the Court’s orders constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d), (g).) The Court further finds that the prior sanctions imposed by the Court in this action have not been effective in compelling Plaintiff to comply with her obligations under the Discovery Act, and that such failure has prejudiced the defense’s ability to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims and to prepare for trial. Therefore, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d).) Plaintiff Rosalinda Palomo’s Complaint shall be dismissed as against Defendant Karla Ann Ciarolla herein.

 

No further monetary sanctions are awarded.

 

 

2027501 – CITY OF CERES VS. ESTATE OF GLENDA GLYNDA GAIL BOLOGNA – Receiver Mark Adams’ Motion for Discharge of Receiver, Exoneration of Surety, and Order Directing Repayment of Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.

 

Based on the moving papers and the lack of any written opposition, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion and to sign the proposed order submitted by the Receiver. However, as the discharge hearing presents the final opportunity for objections to be raised, the Court shall hold a hearing as noticed in order to confirm the absence of any objections to the requested order.

 

 

CV-19-001163 – APPLICATION OF TOTAL QUALITY LOGISTICS LLC – Applicant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena and Request for Sanctions – DENIED, without prejudice.

 

No proof of service of the instant motion upon Respondent has been submitted. Moreover, the motion does not comply with the requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005(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-19-000335 – JOHNSON CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC VS. DAVIDSON, AMBER – Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED.