April 04, 2025

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-21-005221 SPANSEL, IVAN vs PACIFICA SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT LLC – Cross- Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Cross-defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc. was alleged by cross-complainant Pacifica Senior Living Management LLC of having caused the death of decedent Eric Spansel. Defendant was at a Pacifica facility from September 26, 2020 to October 17, 2020. (UMF 3) He was transported to DMC some time on October 17. (UMF 4)

Eric Spansel was diagnosed with a left femoral neck fracture at DMC. (UMF 5.) His conditioned worsened over the next few week. (UMF 6-11.) After some improvement, the decedent’s health worsened until November 3, 2020, when he was transported away from DMC to hospice care (UMF 12-27). He died on November 4, 2020 (UMF 28).

DMC met the standard of care during the time decedent was there. (UMF 35.)

Cross-Defendant, as the moving party, has carried the initial burden of production of evidence demonstrating entitlement to judgment in its favor based on the expert declaration of Dr. Ozdalga.

The burden then shifts to Cross-Complainant to introduce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute. In view of the lack of opposition, Cross-Complainant has failed to carry the burden in this regard.

CV-24-008215 – JAMES PETERSEN INDUSTRIES vs WPD HOMES INC – Defendant WPD Homes, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Standing – DENIED without prejudice.

The Court is now on notice that there is a bankruptcy proceeding. The Court is skeptical that it has jurisdiction to take any action pending completion of the bankruptcy case. The Court expressly permits resubmission of the motion after the bankruptcy case has concluded.

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

CV-24-003686 – THOMPSON, AVERY vs SAFETY NETWORKTRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES INC – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DROPPED as MOOT.

Pursuant to the request of the Moving Party, the hearing on this motion is DROPPED as MOOT. A Substitution of Attorney form was filed on March 28, 2025.

CV-24-006546 – JACKSON, THUY vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION – Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED in part without leave to amend and OVERRULED in part.

Defendants SN Servicing Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Tiki Series IV Trust (“Defendants”) have demurred to the first amended complaint (“FAC”) as a whole and to each cause of action except the second. For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer to the complaint as a whole based on failure to join indispensable parties is OVERRULED. On the ground of failure to state sufficient facts, the demurrer to the first, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is OVERRULED. Moving Defendant is to file an answer within 10 days.

Complaint: Failure to Join Indispensable Parties

OVERRULED. Plaintiff has adequately explained that her spouse is not a necessary party to this action because he was not a borrower on the loan at issue. As for the third-party buyers of the property, the Court would agree that they are indispensable parties for the wrongful foreclosure and cancellation of instruments causes of action, but, for the reasons set forth below, these causes of action do not survive demurrer. Thus, the demurrer on this basis is moot vis-à-vis the buyers.

First Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 2923.5): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

SUSTAINED without leave to amend (again). The Court previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action without leave to amend pursuant to Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 526. Not only did Plaintiff fail to honor the Court’s prior demurrer ruling by realleging the identical cause of action, but to add insult to injury, the argument in opposition made this time around is an exact cut-and-paste of the argument that Plaintiff made the first time; no new information is added.

The Court admonishes Plaintiff for her failure to comply with the Court’s prior ruling and cautions that such conduct in the future may result in the Court sanctioning Plaintiff or her counsel.

Third Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 2924.17): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The Court previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action with leave to amend, noting in its prior demurrer ruling, “The defendant argues that the plaintiff has not shown any substantive deficiencies in the execution of the foreclosure process and further argues that the complaint fails to show how any alleged violation was material. The opposition is again silent on this issue, which serves as an implied concession to Defendant’s arguments.”

No substantive changes to the third cause of action were made in the FAC, and the opposition to the demurrer to the FAC once again failed to even mention this cause of action. As Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing how the cause of action could be amended to state sufficient facts, a denial of leave to amend is warranted.

Fourth Cause of Action (Negligence): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff has made a significant effort in the FAC to show that Defendants owed her a duty of care. However, as stated in Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, “Neither plaintiff's assertion of a ‘special relationship’ between himself and Wells Fargo nor his invocation of the factors articulated in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 16 (Biakanja) provides a compelling basis to recognize such a duty [of care]. Plaintiff's claim arises from the mortgage contract he had with Wells Fargo, and as such, falls within the ambit of the economic loss doctrine. That judicially created doctrine bars recovery in negligence for pure economic losses when such claims would disrupt the parties’ private ordering, render contracts less reliable as a means of organizing commercial relationships, and stifle the development of contract law. [Citations.]”

Nothing set forth in the FAC overcomes this bar.

Fifth Cause of Action (Wrongful Foreclosure): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

SUSTAINED without leave to amend. While the FAC adds legal arguments as to why Plaintiff contends that she is excused from tender or that the tender rule is inapplicable, the stated grounds for excuse from tender remain the same. (Compare Compl. ¶ 55 with FAC ¶ 66.) Because the grounds have not changed, and the Court previously found the grounds insufficient, then it appears that the cause of action once again does not survive demurrer. And as Plaintiff made no effort to revise the grounds supporting the cause of action, leave to amend is denied.

Furthermore, to the extent that the cause of action seeks to unwind the foreclosure sale, the third-party purchasers of the home would be necessary parties.

Furthermore, to the extent that the cause of action seeks to unwind the foreclosure sale, the third-party purchasers of the home would be necessary parties.

Sixth Cause of Action (Violation of the Business and Professions Code): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

OVERRULED. Although the Court previously stated in its ruling concerning the demurrer to the original complaint that Plaintiff should amend this cause of action to delete reference to Civil Code § 2923.5, and Plaintiff failed to comply with this directive when drafting the FAC, the fact of the matter is that the cause of action survives demurrer. The Court previously overruled the demurrer to the second cause of action, which alleges a violation of Civil Code § 2924.9. The instant cause of action is based in part on a violation of that statute. Moving Defendant’s contention in the current briefing that the allegations are speculative and unsupported is unpersuasive; the allegations are sufficient to give notice.

Seventh Cause of Action (Cancellation of Written Instruments, Civ. Code § 3412): Failure to State Sufficient Facts

SUSTAINED without leave to amend. This cause of action is based on a finding of wrongful foreclosure. For the reasons stated above, that cause of action does not survive demurrer. Consequently, this cause of action fails as well. 

PR-23-000794- IN THE MATTER OF ARNOLD JAMES ROTHLIN REVOCABLE TRUST – a) Beneficiary Elizabeth Laffranchini’s Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions – DROPPED; b) Beneficiary Amy Rothlin’s Motion to Continue Trial Date – DROPPED; c) Notice of Elizabeth Laffranchini’s Motion and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – Originally Filed 2/26/25 – DROPPED; d) Steven Malcoun, Esq’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel – DROPPED.

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

CV-23-000569 – KOCHER, JEFFREY FRANK vs JACKSON, MARKUS, MD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas Pursuant to Code Civ. Poc. 1987.1 – DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

CV-23-003743 – COLD STORAGE MFG INC vs TRANSCANNA HOLDINGS INC – Plaintiff/ Cross- Defendant Cold Storage MFG Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant/ Cross- Complainant Transcanna Holdings Inc. and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to produce documents in accordance with its representation that it would do so; therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to produce the subject documents within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. sect. 2031.320(a).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(b), 2023.010, 2023.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $385 are awarded against Defendant Transcanna Holdings, Inc. and its counsel, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

CV-23-003813 – ARNOLD, KIMBLY vs SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICES – Defendants Superior Loan Servicing, Also Sued as “AKA Superior Loan Servicing Trust 1,” Peter Hong and the Pinegrove Trust’s Demurrer to Kimbly Arnold and Byron Arnold’s Fourth Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

First, the Court notes that the current version of the pleading exceeds the scope of the Court’s order allowing Plaintiffs to amend following the sustaining of the previous demurrer. (See, e.g. Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4^th 1018, 1023.)

Moreover, based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a legally recognized claim against these Defendants. While the Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs have finally submitted the written documents upon which their claims are purportedly based, the Court also notes that Plaintiffs have simultaneously dropped the contract claims against these Defendants. Moreover, the loan terms contained in the attached documents appear to disclose the late charges and increased interest rates which Plaintiffs complain of herein. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ various versions of the pleading are inconsistent with regard to various facts asserted therein.

Further, the Court again concludes that much of the pleading is unintelligible as to the facts and theories alleged, and it appears that Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate how it may be further amended to state a viable claim against these Defendants. Therefore, further leave to amend is DENIED.

CV-23-007014 – DE ANDA, ANGELICA vs BRONCO WINE COMPANY – Defendant Bronco Wine Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Angelica de Anda’s Deposition in Modesto California – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to April 22, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

Based on the papers submitted, the Court finds that the parties have not fully explored all reasonable options for resolving their dispute as to the subject deposition proceeding. Therefore, the Court believes that the potential remains for the parties to arrive at a reasonable compromise of the issues presented herein with further meet and confer efforts expended in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED for this purpose, and counsel shall meet and confer in person or by telephone in a genuine attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the issues herein.

 

If such efforts are unsuccessful at resolving the issues, the parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement describing their efforts and the present status of the dispute no later than April 16, 2025.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-22-004051 – KING, THOMAS vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings. Accordingly, this matter is continued to May  6, 2025 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-22-005070 – MO, JOHN DOE vs DOE 1 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Ceres Police Department to Produce Records Subpoenaed by Plaintiff – GRANTED, conditionally.

The Court finds the requested discovery is relevant and discoverable and that any privacy interests of Mr. Berryhill in the requested discovery are outweighed by Plaintiffs substantial interest in said discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010; Williams v. Superior Ct., (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531; Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Sch. Dist., (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250).

However, the Court finds that Sexual Child Abuse Reports (SCAR) are not subject to disclosure to Plaintiff. (Civ. Proc. Code § 11167.5)

The Court also finds, given that the crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the Ceres Unified School District was aware of Mr. Berryhill’s propensity towards child sexual abuse and yet negligently hired, supervised and or retained him, that said discovery request overbroad in that it seeks discovery that extends beyond 1980, when Plaintiff’s alleges that the sexual abuse occurred. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the relevance of Ceres Police Department records relating to any allegations of child sexual abuse by Mr. Berryhill after 1980.

The Court also finds that the information of other child sexual abuse victims contained in the requested documents is subject to privacy protection. (California Constitution art. I, § 1).

Accordingly, Ceres Police Department shall provide the requested documents to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, except for Child Sexual Abuse Reports therein contained. Plaintiff shall provide his name and sufficient identifying information to the Ceres Police Department to enable them to determine which reports, if any ,relate to Plaintiff’s sex abuse claims herein

Furthermore, any private and identifying information relating to other third-party child sexual abuse victims of Mr. Berryhill such as names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers from shall be redacted therefrom. redact (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc., (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566).

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer to agree on the terms of a possible stipulated protective order.

CV-22-004216 – PERALES, JUAN vs SHIPS PIZZA INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.

Subject to clarification regarding the payment to the Settlement Administrator and a possible amendment to the proposed order to reflect said clarification, if needed, the Court is inclined to find that good cause exists for the Court to find the settlement agreement between the parties reasonable, fair, and adequate.

CV-23-003438 – ARTEAGA, SALVADOR RIVERA vs ALGHAZZI, WISSAM A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or in the Alternative Discovery and Evidence Sanctions – CONTINUED, on Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court finds that both the original and the amended notice of this motion demonstrate proof of service on Husam Fadhel IN PRO PER at 11913 Handel Ave Bakerfield, CA, 93312.

The Court is unaware that said Husam Fadel is a party to this action, and nothing has been provided to the Court to that effect.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Summons herein were served on Defendant Wissam Alghazzi dba Sam Auto Sales at 621 9^th Street in Modesto. Said Defendant’s Answer herein also stated Defendant’s address as said 621 9^th Street in Modesto. 

The Court therefore finds that Defendant was not properly served with this motion. The Court also finds, based on due process considerations that this motion ought to be continued for proper service on Defendant. (Braugh v. Dow, (2023) 93 Cal. App. 5th 76, reh'g denied (July 19, 2023), review denied (Oct. 11, 2023) ; U.S. Const. Amend. 14; Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7).

This matter is accordingly continued to Friday May 2, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

In the interim, the parties are advised to meet and confer about continuing with arbitration or returning this matter to Court.  

The Court notes, should it subsequently find that Defendant has breached a material obligation under the arbitration agreement, that Plaintiff will be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions herein. The Court further notes that it has not been provided any information to enable it to determine the amount of any such monetary sanctions. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1281.97, 1281.98 and 1297.99).

CV-24-008784 – GAYLORD MANUFACTURING INC vs RAMIREZ, JESUS – Cross Complainants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – GRANTED.  

The Court finds, considering the terms of the 2013, 2019 and 2024 Agreements between the parties, that it appears that said agreements were between Gaylord Manufacturing Inc. and Jesus and Criselda Ramirez operating via or for the use of Chuy’s Towing Inc.  The Court notes that notwithstanding Cross Defendant’s claims of assignment of the lease regarding 1730 E. Whitmore Ave, to Chuy’s Towing, no evidence was provided in support of that claim. Furthermore, the parties’ 2013 Agreement, the terms of which were maintained in the 2019 Agreement, prohibited the assignment or subletting of the property without Gaylord’s Manufacturing Inc.’s consent and declared any such void. Moreover, the Ramirezes do not claim that they obtained the required consent for the alleged assignment.

Even if Chuy’s Towing Inc. were a tenant of the property, the Court also finds, given the unity of interest and ownership between the Ramirezes and Chuy’s Towing Inc., that the separate personalities of Chuy’s Towing Inc.  and the Ramirezes no longer exist, and that treating the Ramirezes’ acts as those of the corporation alone would result in an inequitable  outcome.  (.(Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin, (2017)14 Cal.App.5th 214; Greenspan v. LADT, LLC, (2010191 Cal.App.4th 486). In this regard, the Court notes the Ramirezes responses to Gaylord’s Form Interrogatories which failed to mention Chuy’s Towing as an tenant/occupant of said property, as well as Chuy’s Towing’s failure to declare any possessory interest in the property following the Notice to Vacate issued for said property which gave notice to potential claimants to possession to said property not mentioned in the complaint to fill in a right to possession form. 

However, the Court finds that given the lack of clarity and notice surrounding the allegations of breach listed in the 2024 Agreement, as well as Gaylord Manufacturing Inc’s receipt of rent and principal payments from Cross Defendants totaling $40,600 after claims that the 2024 Agreement had been breached, that Cross Defendants are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim. (Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, (20140 232 Cal.App.4th 1171; Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster, (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1; EDC Assocs. Ltd v. Gutierrez, (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 167)

The Court further finds that the interim harm that the Cross Complainants are likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the Cross Defendants are likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction , weighs in favor of granting the requested injunction. In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction
(Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri, (2012), 208 Cal. App. 4th 1342, as modified (Sept. 14, 2012).

Accordingly, Cross-Complainants’ Motion is granted. Cross Defendants are hereby restrained from evicting Chuy’s Towing Inc from the property pending the determination of this case on its merits.

In the interim, Cross Plaintiffs shall pay Cross Defendants $13,200 a month in rent and principal payments as per previously. Said payments shall be deposited into an escrow account set up for that purpose.

The parties’ requests for Judicial Notice are granted . ( Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453).

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***