April 25, 2025

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

CV-23-007642 – PEREZ, CHRISTINA vs CARSWELL GROUP INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to May 15, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.

The Court notes that the Proposed Class Notice appears to contemplate a 60-day period for class members to submit notice of  intention to exclude themselves from the settlement, whereas the Settlement Agreement provides for a 45-day period in that regard. Moreover, the Proposed Class Notice fails to advise class members of a specific deadline by which to submit disputes relative to their work week calculations or to otherwise object to the settlement (which also appears to be 45 days from mailing of the notice, based on the Settlement Agreement).  Therefore, the hearing is continued and Class Counsel is instructed to submit a supplemental declaration with a revised Proposed Class Notice for the Court’s review in this regard no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

CV-24-006727 – KEM, DR CHANTHA, DC vs MODESTO CAMBODIAN BUDDHIST SOCIETY INC – a) Defendants Modesto Cambodian Buddhist Society, Inc., Van Prom, Kunna Vath Chanthou Suon, and Ry Kea’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint or Portions Thereof, Pursuant to CCP 425.16 and Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP 425.16(C) – GRANTED in full as to all defendants except of Defendant Suon; GRANTED in part as to Defendant Suon; b) Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – MOOT as to all but Defendant Soun; SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to Defendant Soun

a-b) Factual and procedural summary: In case CV-22-4352, a permanent civil harassment restraining order was issued against respondent Ham and in favor of petitioner Kem on October 20, 2022. Kem is the Plaintiff in this case and Ham is a defendant. I (Judge Mayne) issued the order after hearing finding clear and convincing evidence that there was either a pattern of harassment, a credible threat of violence, or actual violence, and that it was likely to recur without an order. I issued the order for three years.

Plaintiff’s complaint in this case was filed on August 27, 2024. A First Amended Complaint was filed December 6, 2024. It alleges that the temple and its managing council knew of the restraining order and operated to defeat it. It alleges that Plaintiff is a member of the Cambodian People’s Party and Defendants support the opposing Cambodian National Rescue Party.

In Paragraph 20, Plaintiff alleges that about three days after the ruling in the CHRO case, Defendant Ham made threats against him and Defendant Suon was supporting those threats. (The exact threats are not listed.)

Plaintiff alleges that his wife was scheduled to attend a funeral on April 21, 2024, as well as a Cambodian New Year’s celebration on the same date. At the funeral, Defendant Ham was invited to sing at the New Year’s celebration, which Plaintiff alleges is a violation of the restraining order.

Plaintiff called the Modesto Police Department which referred him to the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department arrived and, on the request of some or all of the Defendants, ordered Plaintiff to leave.

Plaintiff’s description of the events is that he was afraid of Defendant Ham, but stayed near the concert stage where Ham was singing when law enforcement arrived. Plaintiff alleges in Paragraph 29 that he was trying to enforce a lawful restraining order when he was removed.

This case was assigned to Judge John Freeland. No party promptly filed a notice of related case as required under Rule 3.300. After prodding by Judge Freeland and me, the notices were filed and this Court deemed the cases related and took the later case.

Defendants other than Defendant Ham have filed a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) and demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

Special Motion to Strike the Complaint or Portions Thereof: Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16 permits the striking of an entire complaint or portions thereof if protected activity is implicated. This is a two-step process. First the Court decides whether the challenged claims arise from protected activity. At that point, the Court must determine whether the merits of the claims survive. (Equillon Enterprices v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4^th 53, 67.)

The Court rules as follows:

Portions of paragraphs 1-7: DENIED. This goes to motive.

Paragraph 19-20: DENIED. The first portion of paragraph 19 goes to motive. The remainder is arguably unprotected speech.

Paragraph 21, 25, 26: DENIED. Goes to motive.

Paragraph 28: GRANTED. Petitions to government agencies are constitutionally protected speech. There are allegations that this appeal was malicious in the traditional sense of the term, but no showing that Plaintiffs made any false statements to police. Such a showing is required. (See: Kenne v. Stennis (2014) 239 Cal.App.4^th 200)

Paragraphs 34 and 41: GRANTED. These are derivative of Paragraph 28.

The second portion of the analysis is as to the likelihood of success once any stricken portions are excised. Except as to Defendant Soun, Plaintiff does not appear to have a likelihood of success.

Plaintiff has a fundamental misunderstanding of his rights in this case. There is no court order – and indeed, it is unlikely there could be – that Plaintiff was entitled to attend temple events against the wishes of the temple’s management. Plaintiff does not cite to cases giving him this entitlement, probably because they do not exist.

Plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit is based on three and a half years of offending behavior by Defendants, but there is no indication that there was legally offensive action other than the threats by Defendant Ham (who is not bringing this motion) and Defendant Suon.

The statements to law enforcement are protected speech.

Thus, as to all moving defendants other than Defendant Suon, the motion to dismiss is granted. Attorney fees are ordered, and will be determined either by the parties or through separate motion.

Demurrer:

As to all parties other than Defendant Suon, the demurrers are moot.

As to Defendant Suon, there is insufficient detail of the threats by Defendant Ham that were allegedly made and which he supported. (The Court does not consider declarations for the purposes of the Demurrer.)

Defendant Ham is not a party to this Demurrer.

This may well be repairable via amendment, thus leave to amend as to Defendant Suon is granted.

CV-24-008274 – DOUGLAS, SHAWNA MARIE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) – GRANTED in part.

Post-filing, the parties have limited some of the issues. The Court anticipates that there will not be future filings, and if there are that the parties will attempt to resolve all resolvable issues prior to filing.

The Court disbelieves it has the authority to order documents where there has been a verified filing that such documents do not exist. Remedies for that are outside the scope of this filing.

Plaintiff has provided citations to trial court cases. The Court notes that citation to unpublished appellate and Superior Court cases is generally not permitted. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4^th 443, 447 fn. 2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Counsel is now on notice of the rules and the Court believes this note will be sufficient corrective action.

The Court orders further responses as to the me-too complainants as currently narrowed within 30 days. Admissibility of the evidence cannot be determined until the records are disclosed; the Court must then make a determination based on the specific facts of the case.

CV-24-008540 – TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION – Defendant Belsera Homeowners Association’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court views the meet and confer efforts as insufficient. Plaintiff’s offer to amend the complaint to repair any statute of limitations issues is well-taken.

As to the issue of the nature of the easement, the Court is required to either give Plaintiff an opportunity for sur-reply or not to consider late-added evidence in the reply.

The Court’s strong inclination is to permit amendment of the complaint, rendering this motion moot. By mooting this motion, Defendant will not be restricted in its pleading options after the filing.

If either party opposes this course of action, the Court will consider that opposition before making any ruling.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 22***

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

CV-22-005565 – ROSALES, ANTONIO vs LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – Defendant Andrea Clarke’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action – DENIED.

The Court finds that the Complaint states sufficient facts to support Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment against Defendant Clarke within the applicable limitations period.

CV-24-008809 – TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC – Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Alec Schutlz – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service fails to demonstrate notice to the State Bar within the time requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b), as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40(c)(1). Moreover, Mr. Schultz’s declaration fails to comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5; therefore, it fails to qualify as a verified application required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.

CV-24-009498 – HEWETT, KEVAN vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration – GRANTED.

The Court finds that the parties entered an enforceable agreement to arbitrate in connection with the warranty claims asserted in this action. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint expressly acknowledges the existence of a binding agreement between the parties and also admits that he availed himself of its benefits in presenting his car for repairs under the subject warranty.  Therefore, Plaintiff is equitably estopped from claiming the benefits of that agreement while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens it imposes.

All further proceedings in the instant action are stayed pending completion of the arbitration.  (9 U.S.C. § 3.)

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

CV-19-000330 – ALAMEDA, RICHARD vs GENTRY’S CUSTOM FARMING – Defendants’ Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Tax Costs – GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs claimed expert fees of $44,211.32 are not allowable as costs except when expressly authorized by law. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(b)(1); Kahn v. The Dewey Group (2015), 240 Cal.App.4th 227; Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012), 203 Cal.App.4th 49, rehearing denied, review denied).  

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s claimed Court Reporter Fees of $2,194.31 and Mediation fee of $2,000.00 are not allowable pursuant to an admitted agreement between the parties on the division of costs.  (Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 25).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ costs are hereby taxed in the sum of $48,405.63.

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to, and hereby awards, Plaintiffs $2,350.55 in costs.

CV-24-005410 – MARTINEZ, ALEJANDRO vs SUPER STORE INDUSTRIES – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings – VACATED, per the parties’ stipulation

CV-25-000153 – BAEZ, FERNANDO SANCHEZ vs AMERICAN AUTO DEPOT INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, For Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, and Request for Stay – CONTINUED, per the parties’ stipulation.

Following the parties’ stipulation to submit the claims herein to arbitration and to stay same until the completion of arbitration, this matter is continued to April 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

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***