Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
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, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
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 or ctreport@stanct.org 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
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-000065 – GALVAN, ULISES vs NUNEZ, OSCAR – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Oscar Nunez’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to November 22, 2024; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Oscar Nunez’s Further Responses to Requests for Admission (Set One); Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to November 22, 2024; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Oscar Nunez’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to November 22, 2024.
CONTINUED to November 22, 2024, so that all motions may be heard together.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-24-007109 – GHASHEHKOSROV, DANYEL vs CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration in Lieu of Answer {CCP 1281.7} – GRANTED.
Pursuant to the authority set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.7, as well as Tornai v. CSAA Insurance Exchange (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 974, the Court compels that parties to conclude the pending arbitration proceeding and stays consideration of the causes of action contained in Plaintiff’s complaint pending the outcome of the arbitration. The Court notes the insurance contract between Plaintiff and Defendant contains an arbitration clause and arbitration has been initiated and is ongoing – although it is apparent Plaintiff is not happy with the pace of the arbitration proceeding. Nevertheless, the arbitration process must play itself out prior to the Court adjudicating any allegations of breach of contract or bad faith vis a vis the insurance contract.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-23-002171 – MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL, JR – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant El & El Wood Products Corp Set One(1), and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $5,260.00; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Responses to Request for Production from Defendant Thanh Ly Set One(1), and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $5,260.00; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Responses to Request for Production from Defendant El & El Wood Products Corp Set One(1), and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $5,260.00 –
(a), (b), (c) – HEARING REQUIRED.
The parties failed to submit a further Joint Status Statement, as instructed by the Court’s order dated 10-17-24. Therefore, counsel shall appear to advise the Court as to the status of meet-and-confer efforts and to identify the matters remaining in dispute, if any.
CV-23-003813 – ARNOLD, KIMBLY vs SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICES – Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to: [C.C.P. 1008(A), (B); and Violation of CRC 3.1590(G) Pursuant to the Plaintiff Raising Second Objection to Courtroom Procedural Abuse and to: 1. Procedural Irregularities 2. Court Fraud 3. Intention Violation of Surprise Filing of Motion with Failure to Meet and Confer before Filing Notices to Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.
Based on the moving papers and the proposed amended pleading submitted therewith, it appears that Plaintiffs have not identified any new or different facts in connection with their claim against Defendants Acosta and La Rosa Realty which would support reconsideration of the Court’s 10-16-24 order. However, the Court will hear from the parties at the time of the hearing.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-20-004732 – WILLIAMS, R MICHAEL, MD vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Ellen Williams, Personal Representative of R. Michael Williams’ Estate, As Plaintiff – GRANTED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Filing of Second Amended Complaint – GRANTED.
a) Good cause existing, Ellen Willliam’s application to continue this action for the deceased H. Michael Williams in her capacity as his successor in interest is hereby granted. (California Code of Civil Procedure CCP §§ 377.20, 377.21, 377.30, 377.31, 377.32; Adams v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 71).
Accordingly, Ellen Williams is hereby substituted for decedent H. Michael Williams in the instant action as his successor in interest.
b) The Court finds that the filling of Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint is consistent with the leave granted by the Court and the parties’ agreement.
The Court also finds that any arguments against the substance of the claims in the proposed Second Amended Complaint are better suited to a Motion for Summary Judgment and will not be considered by the Court in respect of this application.
Plaintiff shall file their Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this order.
CV-23-003065 – WELLS AVE MODESTO LLC vs HAGGERTY CONSTRUCTION INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Lien/Prevent Recording of Lien – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
Due to issues with processing the parties’ supplementary pleadings this matter is being continued to Thursday December 12th 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
CV-23-007383 – LORENZEN, ROMAN vs GENERAL MOTROS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidence, Issue, Terminating, and/or Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,750.00 - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
The Court finds that Defendant did not comply with the Court’s order of May 16, 2024, and that said conduct constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civil Proc. § 2023.010 (g)). Defendant’s Counsel is advised that the Court does not look kindly upon parties who do not comply with the Court’s orders. Furthermore, the Court does not consider “substantial compliance” with the Court’s orders adequate in this regard.
The Court also finds that Defendant’s Counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s meet and confer attempts and that Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to engage in meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel, notwithstanding Defendant’s Counsel’s present protestations that Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer.
Nevertheless, based on the judicial policy of an incremental approach to the imposition of discovery sanctions and Defendant’s Counsel’s assertion that “it is simply a matter of working with GM’s witness to confirm availability” the Court hereby orders Defendant’s Counsel to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel to schedule the deposition of Defendant’s appropriate PMQ for the outstanding categories of discovery and or production pursuant to the Court’s May 16, 2024 order. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., (2009)174 Cal. App. 4th 967).
Accordingly, this matter is continued to December 20th, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24. Both parties shall file a joint status statement five (5) court days prior to the next hearing. Should said deposition have not been held by then, the Court will impose more consequential sanctions.
The Court is inclined to award Plaintiff monetary sanctions for this motion but will address same at the next hearing.
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-24-001245 – OSM RIVER CREST LP vs NAND, NICHOLAS – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.