Civil Tentative Rulings

April 7, 2026

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

CV-23-003518 – HERNANDEZ, OLEGARIO vs GROWER DISTRICT NUT COMPANY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court has reviewed the settlement pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(l)(2). The settlement was reached through arm’s length negotiations after sufficient exchange of information, and Defendant continues to deny liability. The allocation of civil penalties complies with PAGA, including payment of 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees. The settlement amount is substantial in light of the litigation risks and the Court’s discretion to reduce penalties under Labor Code section 2699(e)(2).

                The settlement terms are a gross amount of $163,500, attorney fees of $54,500, costs of $15,286.95, settlement administration fees of $6,271.67 with the remainder split as above between the LWDA and the aggrieved employees. There are about 369 aggrieved employees.

The requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and administration expenses are authorized by statute and reasonable.

The Court finds the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and consistent with the purposes of PAGA.

1.           The PAGA Settlement Agreement is approved.

2.           Attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and administration expenses are approved as set forth in the motion.

3.           Judgment shall be entered consistent with the settlement agreement.

The Court schedules a compliance hearing for October 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 21.

No later than five (5) court days before the compliance hearing, the settlement administrator shall file a declaration addressing the status of settlement administration, including:

•             Payment of the LWDA’s share of PAGA penalties;

•             Distribution of settlement payments to aggrieved employees; and

•             The status and disposition of any uncashed settlement checks.

Upon review, if the settlement administrator’s declaration is on file and the settlement has been fully distributed, the Court will vacate the compliance hearing, and no appearance will be necessary.

CV-24-008027 – GOMEZ, PAOLA vs TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – GRANTED as to the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action, DENIED as to the remainder.

Evidentiary objections:

OBJECTIONS:

Plaintiff’s Objections to Gomez Deposition:

1. OVERRULED.
2. OVERRULED.
3. OVERRULED.
4. SUSTAINED, as to sham pleading rule for deposition testimony.
5. OVERRULED. These go to weight.
6. OVERRULED.
7. OVERRULED.
8. OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s objections to Hamby declaration:

9. OVERRULED.
10. OVERRULED.
11. OVERRULED. Whether the type of problems alleged were fabricated is relevant. Also, see UMF 20.
12. OVERRULED.
13. OVERRULED.
14. OVERRULED.
15. OVERRULED.
16. OVERRULED.
17. OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s objection to Silveira declaration:

18. SUSTAINED.
    1. 1. 1.  

Defendant’s Objections to Gomez declaration:

1. OVERRULED.
2. OVERRULED. Statements by McClain are only admitted to explain Plaintiff’s conduct.
3. OVERRULED. Statements by Schulke are only admitted to explain Plaintiff’s conduct.
4. SUSTAINED.
5. OVERRULED.
6. OVERRULED.
7. OVERRULED.
8. SUSTAINED.
9. OVERRULED. Admitted only to explain Plaintiff’s conduct.
10. OVERRULED.

At the March 17 hearing, Plaintiff specifically requested that the Court rule on the motion despite Defendant’s choice to include a fair amount of non-UMF facts in its pleadings. The Court has discretion to do so, and does so.

Plaintiff at that hearing correctly abandoned her arguments as to the Second, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action. (The Court had misnumbered them, and the parties assisted.) 

The Court’s standard practice is to refer to UMF’s throughout its factual summary. Some of the factual summary does not do this for the reasons indicated above.

FACTUAL SUMMARY:

Plaintiff was a probationary teacher for the Turlock Unified School District who was hired in November, 2021. Plaintiff returned for the 2022-2023 school year and told the principal Robert Ruiz that she would require pregnancy leave for the latter portion of the school year. Ruiz asked if she had told the administration of this request before she had left the previous year. Plaintiff asserts his tone was hostile. She said she had not.

Ruiz said in a declaration that he asked the question to plan for maternity leave coverage.

Ruiz characterizes this as an “administrative” question.

After an observation of the classroom on October 11, 2022, Ruiz noted an apparent problem between Plaintiff and a paraprofessional during a classroom observation. This appeared in an initial written review, but Ruiz later removed it.

The evaluation was “satisfactory” which was the highest grade available on the form.

Dianna McLain, Plaintiff’s mentor, observed problems between Plaintiff and other staff members. Ruiz did not recall speaking to McLain about this. Ruiz did not note this in any of his evaluations.

Kim Hamby, a behavioralist, did not believe Plaintiff was engaging the students properly. Ruiz denied that her evaluation affected his decision, despite speaking with her.

Ruiz said that he would do another evaluation of Plaintiff’s classroom at some point but did not. 

Plaintiff is alleged to have failed to use the disciplinary system correctly, which calls for gently accelerating sanctions against students who misbehave.

Plaintiff failed a “RICA” test multiple times, but this was not a reason for her non-re-election.

In December 2022, Plaintiff was told she would not be retained for the following year.

ANALYSIS

The Court does not re-visit its analysis on the Second, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action. Plaintiff at oral argument did not offer a defense to the Court’s concerns about the adequacy of the evidence for those causes of action.

On summary judgment for discrimination and retaliation claims, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 US 792 controls. (See: Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School District (1995) 41 Cal.App.4^th 189.)

Here, Defendant has proffered legitimate reasons for concern over Plaintiff’s performance; the Court has summarized most, but not all, of them above. Defendant meets its threshold burden to show that it had a non-discriminatory reason for its decision not to retain Plaintiff. (See: Guz v. Bechtal Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4^th 317.

Plaintiff must then show that there is a reasonable inference of discriminatory motive. The Court does not make credibility findings at this stage.

The Court finds this showing has been made.

                               

• Ruiz hostilely asked (per Plaintiff) whether she had notified Defendant’s agents of her pregnancy before departing the prior year. A reasonable fact-finder might find that indicated anti-pregnancy animus.
• Ruiz did not consider Hamby’s highly negative input in determining not to retain Plaintiff. A reasonable fact-finder might determine that his mind was already made up, or alternatively that Ruiz is not a reliable historian.
• Plaintiff received the highest grade on her evaluations available, but was still not retained.
•  Ruiz said he would do another evaluation of Plaintiff, but did not.

There are other, less strong indicators of discriminatory motive.

Defendant argued at oral argument and in the pleadings that because the district employed many female employees and was familiar with pregnancy leave that they would have no reason to act in a discriminatory fashion. The Court rejects that inference entirely, and rejects it as a reason to deny the motion.

This is all circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Some of this goes to the Plaintiff’s credibility, which the Court does not evaluate here. Further, the Court’s duty is only to determine whether the case is triable based on what is before it.

The Seventh Cause of action appears derivative of other surviving causes of action and survives.

CV-24-008274 – DOUGLAS, SHAWNA MARIE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions and has not yet reviewed the unredacted filings. I intend to continue the matter after I have heard from counsel.

First, there is an apparent rule violation in the Opposition. I disbelieve – having attempted this – that 12-point type on a properly margined motion with 1.5 spacing can generate a 32-line pleading. The Court suspects this was done to circumvent the length rules.

The Court also wants to discuss the exact nature of the alleged withholding of the Williams, Cloney, and Robinson declarations.

Defendant provided a declaration with the reply brief in violation of Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(b)(4). The Court notes that the amendment forbidding additional evidence was effective January 1, 2025.

The Court has to sort out what evidence it can rely on and requires the parties’ assistance.

CV-25-003270 – SINGH, IQBAL vs FCA US LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses - GRANTED, and unopposed. Plaintiff’s counsel is sanction $450 for violation of the rules of court.

The Kirnos declaration cites to unpublished appellate court opinions. The Knight Law Group has been warned before about this practice. This is a willful violation of Rule of Court 8.1115, and the Court has an affirmative duty to prevent such occurrences. The Court anticipates it will not be required to take further action because this will not recur.

The motion itself does not assist in determining the amount of attorney fees sought; only the declaration does so. While the Court would normally reduce the hourly rate sought, this was an unusually efficiently litigated case.

The parties’ settlement agreement expressly provides that Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. Plaintiff seeks $3,536.00 in lodestar fees, a 1.2 multiplier of $707.20, for total attorney’s fees of $4,243.20, plus $1,515.49 in costs and expenses.

Based on the evidence submitted, including counsel’s declaration and billing records, the Court finds the requested fees and costs were actually incurred and are reasonable, and that application of a 1.2 multiplier is warranted in light of the contingent nature of the representation, delay in payment, and the result obtained.

Defendant did not file an opposition. The motion was timely noticed and properly served.

Plaintiff is awarded $5,758.69 in attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

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 Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-25-006564 – NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA vs LINK, ROBERT EDWARD – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The effective date of the order will be delayed until counsel submits proof of service of the signed order on the client. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

The Court notes an inaccuracy in the proposed order, which purports to find that the counsel has personally served the client with the papers supporting the instant motion; however, the proof of service indicates that the papers were served by mail. Counsel shall submit a revised proposed order correcting this information.

CV-25-011122 – STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs ALCAMO FARMS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a 6771 square feet acquisition from a portion of the subject property located at 824 Dakota Avenue, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California,   County Assessor’s Parcel Number 081-031-013 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $10,500.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter up

on and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within  (30) days of service of this Order. Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

UD-26-000138 – LAL, RONALD vs POWELL, JAYMI – Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion on the grounds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have met their burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on the Complaint herein due to Plaintiff’s undisputed failure to comply with the requirements of Civ. Code §§ 1946 and 1946.1(h) with regard to the contents of the 30-day notice. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute defeating the defense’s claimed entitlement to judgment herein. As it appears that Plaintiff concedes the failure to include the required language in the subject notice, the Court is inclined to conclude that Plaintiff has not met his burden in this instance.

Nevertheless, the Court intends to hear the parties’ respective arguments at the time of the hearing.

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

CV-21-001167 – ELIZONDO, AARON vs KCB VENTURES INC – a) Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal’s Motion to Compel Defendant Adcomm, Inc. to Provide Answers/Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One – GRANTED; b) Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal’s Motion to Compel Defendant, Adcomm, Inc. to Respond to/Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – GRANTED; c) Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal’s Motion to Compel Defendant Adcomm, Inc., to Answer/Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One – GRANTED; d) Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

a) The Court finds that Defendant Chalal is entitled to Code Compliant responses to said Form Interrogatories. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010 and 2030.300 ; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).

Accordingly, with the exception of Form Interrogatory Number 1.1, Addcomm shall provide verified Code compliant, substantive responses to said Form Interrogatory Set One, within ten (10) days of service of the Court’s order.

b) The Court finds that Defendant Chalal is entitled to Code Compliant responses to said Requests for Production.  (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010 and 2031.310 ; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).

Accordingly, Addcomm shall provide verified, Code compliant, substantive responses to said Requests for Production, Set One, within ten (10) days of service of the Court’s order.

c) The Court finds that Defendant Chalal is entitled to Code Compliant responses to said Requests for Admissions. (Civ. Proc. Code § § 2017.010 and 2033.290 ; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).

Accordingly, Addcomm shall provide verified, Code compliant, substantive responses to said Requests for Production, Set One, within ten (10) days of service of the Court’s order.

d) Good cause existing, Counsel John Sciacca’s Motion to be Relived as Defendant’s Counsel is hereby granted.

The Court’s order relieving Counsel shall take effect upon service of the Court’s order on Addcomm, and in no case no earlier than the hearing  on the pending discovery motions.

CV-25-011302 – 1420 F STREET LLC vs BALAM WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC – Defendant’s Demurrer to the Entire Plaintiff’s Complaint and to the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action of the Complaint - MOOT.

Defendant’s Demurrer is moot based on the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

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:

UD-26-000276 – JAUREGUI, GUADALUPE vs RUIZ, JUAN FARIAS – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-25-001028 – US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs BOWERS, LATONA R – Motion to Modify or Vacate Conditional Occupancy Order and Request Stay of Enforcement – HEARING REQUIRED.