Civil Tentative Rulings

April 14, 2026

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

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-25-002967 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs GARCIA, MARIO, JR – a) Petition’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One – DENIED, without prejudice. b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – DENIED, without prejudice. c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions – DENIED, without prejudice.

It appears the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over Mr. Garcia herein. The Proof of Service of Summons submitted by Petitioner demonstrates an attempt to serve process pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30, but there is no indication that such service was completed by Mr. Garcia’s return of the acknowledgement form.

CV-25-009269 – EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO – a) Defendant County of Stanislaus’ Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff’s Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, and unopposed. b) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, and unopposed.

a-b) Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, including those matters subject to judicial notice, the Court sustains the Demurrer in its entirety.

The Court will grant leave to amend in this instance despite Plaintiff’s failure to oppose and the Court’s own substantial doubt as to whether Plaintiff is able to allege viable claims in this context; however, Plaintiff is cautioned that it is his burden to demonstrate how additional factual allegations can overcome the demurrer. Therefore, future failures to oppose dispositive motions could result in Plaintiff losing the right to amend his pleading to attempt to allege additional facts to support the stated causes of action.

CV-26-000588 – HINCHMAN, JOHN LEWIS vs REINS, TERRY – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

It appears that counsel has failed to file and serve the required moving and supporting papers, which must be submitted on the mandatory Judicial Council forms. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362.)

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

CV-23-006729 – LUSBY, KARI vs YOUNG, CARTER – Defendant's Motion to Quash Amended Notice of Taking Deposition, to Quash Production of Documents at Deposition, And For Protective Order – WITHDRAWN.

CV-24-009288 - SCOTT, DARRYL vs LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA INC – Compliance Hearing – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court expects Class Counsel’s presence to address the remaining unpaid funds of $10,125.61.

CV-25-006617 – EXPLOITED MILK PRODUCERS INC vs ROSS, KAREN – a) Defendant Karen Ross, in Her Official Capacity as the Secretary of The California Department of Food and Agriculture's Joinder in the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendant-Intervenor save QIP Dairy Farmers – GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – DENIED. c) Intervenor Save QIP Dairy Farmer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED.

a) California Food and Agriculture Code § 62757 is a permissible delegation of implementation of California’s Quota Improvement Plan (QIP) to the California Department of Food and Agriculture in collaboration with the recommendations of the Producer Review Board. The policy and purposes behind said section 62757 to guide the adoption of administrative rules and regulations may be implied from the predecessor Gonsalves Pooling Act.  (Food & Agric. Code § 62700 et seq.; State Bd. of Educ. v. Honig, (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 720; Crim. Just. Legal Found. v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., (2025) 113 Cal. App. 5th 26; Sims v. Kernan, (2018) 30 Cal. App. 5th 10). Sufficient safeguards exist in the form of Food and Agriculture Code §§ 62716 and 62717 which provide for amendment and termination of said QIP by referendum.

Furthermore, a legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and the unconstitutionality of a legislative act must be clearly shown with all doubts being resolved in favor of its validity. (Salmon Trollers Mktg. Assn. v. Fullerton, (1981)124 Cal. App. 3d 291).( See also San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 1070; Taxpayers for Improving Pub. Safety v. Schwarzenegger, (2009)172 Cal. App. 4th 74 and People v. Superior Ct. (J.C. Penney Corp.), (2019), 34 Cal. App. 5th 376, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 6, 2019). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action because Plaintiff has failed to, and cannot, allege facts to support its claim that the reauthorization of the milk quota program is unconstitutional. Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action therefore fail on the face of the pleadings.

At the pleadings stage, Plaintiff’s APA claim fails as a matter of law because a separate statute authorizes the QIP and the procedures for its promulgation, so the APA does not apply. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 14 and § 62757). Additionally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Voss v. Superior Ct., raises fact‑sensitive equivalency and scope questions not suited for judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917).

Furthermore, Food and Agriculture Code section 62757 and its related provisions sufficiently provide for notice and hearing that fulfils the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act and that demonstrate substantial compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.  (Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243, review denied.) 

The principal purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are “protection of the public and participation by the public”. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917). The notice procedure mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ensures the agency does not adopt rules only it knows about. Additionally, the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process related to the adoption of regulations are to provide notice to persons affected by a regulation and give them a voice in its creation. (640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 840, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied.). In that regard, the Court notes that the referendum held on the implementation of the QIP was open to milk producers in California, who are the principal parties affected by the regulation.  The Court also notes public hearings and public input undertaken by the PRB in developing the QIP. (P’s Complaint at Exhibit A). The Administrative Procedure Act is therefore not applicable hereto. (Food and Agriculture Code section 14; Gov. Code section 11346(a)).

A constitutional right is always subject to reasonable statutory limitations as to the time within which to enforce it, if the constitution itself does not provide otherwise. Statutes of limitation are consistent with due process where they allow the plaintiff or petitioner a reasonable time to bring the action.(Adoption of B.C., (2011)195 Cal. App. 4th 913) Generally, a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act is done and a suit may be maintained.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)

The four-year catchall statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 343 may apply to constitutional challenges seeking "relief not hereinbefore provided for". (People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.), (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376). The Statute of Limitations for a facial challenge to a statute begins to run from when the statute becomes effective.  (Hillsboro Props. v. City of Rohnert Park (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 379; Cnty. of Sonoma v. Superior Ct., (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1312). Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action are facial challenges alleging Section 62757 on its face unlawfully delegates legislative power and lacks guidance. Therefore, the Statute of Limitations in relation thereto under Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a) or § 343 began no later than 2018 when the QIP went into effect, making Plaintiff’s present 2025 filing untimely.

Plaintiff’s APA cause of action accrued when the QIP took effect in 2018, without, as claimed by Plaintiffs, complying with all the listed procedures, at which point this violation was complete with all its elements.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)). Plaintiff’s APA claims not under Gov. Code § 11523 are governed by the four-year period and accrued making a 2025 filing untimely Applying the four-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s APA claim is time barred.

Plaintiff’s reliance on continuing-violation or ongoing-collection authorities does not overcome the pleaded facial nature of the first and second claims or the APA accrual tied to QIP effectiveness on a record suitable for judgment on the pleadings. All of Plaintiff’s claims are therefore time-barred.

For the doctrine of Res Judicata to apply the requirements are that: (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding. (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Dep't of Conservation, (2017)11 Cal. App. 5th 1202). The party asserting res judicata has the burden of establishing each element. (Fed. Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., (2013)214 Cal. App. 4th 1520).

Parties are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC, (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172)) Consequently, privity analysis requires careful scrutiny and a close examination of the circumstances of each case to ensure fairness (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources, (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170).  Defendant Intervenor’s reliance on website links to from Stop QIP to the present Plaintiffs, and the presence of a witness in the prior matter who is now Plaintiff’s representative herein, as well as the use of the same law firm are inadequate to discharge Defendant Intervenor’s burden of establishing privity. Establishing privity is fact‑dependent. In the light of Defendant’s failure to establish privity for purposes of res judicata, the Court need not address the elements of final adjudication on the merits on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding.

A defendant must demonstrate three elements to successfully assert a laches defense: (1) delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) prejudice to the party against whom laches is asserted. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd. (2007)., 53 Cal. App. 4th 1144).  The party asserting laches bears the burden of production and proof on each element of the defense. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267). Generally speaking, the existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267).

The delay element is measured by the period from when the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the allegedly infringing conduct, until the initiation of the lawsuit in which the defendant seeks to counterpose the laches defense. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd., supra).  Plaintiff’s delay in filing this action since 2018, at best, when it should have known of the challenged conduct amounts to unreasonable delay of eight years after said § 62757’s effective date and nearly seven years after QIP effectiveness.

However, Defendant has not discharged its burden regarding the issue of prejudice beyond assertions that Defendant Intervenors would not have invested tens of millions of dollars on a yearly basis absent a belief in the maintenance of the QIP in view of the fact that as per Defendant Intervenor’s own claims quota has been tradable for years and that  statutory provisions exist for the termination of the QIP. The defense of laches is therefore not well pled to entitle Defendant to judgment on that basis.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby granted as to Defendant Intervenor on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action on grounds of Plaintiff’s failure to state the asserted causes of action and on grounds that Defendant Intervenor’s Answer states sufficient facts to constitute defenses to said challenges (Code of Civil Procedure § 438(c)). Plaintiff’s Complaint is accordingly dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452(d), 452 (c) and 452(h).

b) California Food and Agriculture Code § 62757 is a permissible delegation of implementation of California’s Quota Improvement Plan (QIP) to the California Department of Food and Agriculture in collaboration with the recommendations of the Producer Review Board. The policy and purposes behind said section 62757 to guide the adoption of administrative rules and regulations may be implied from the predecessor Gonsalves Pooling Act.  (Food & Agric. Code § 62700 et seq.; State Bd. of Educ. v. Honig, (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 720; Crim. Just. Legal Found. v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., (2025) 113 Cal. App. 5th 26; Sims v. Kernan, (2018) 30 Cal. App. 5th 10). Sufficient safeguards exist in the form of Food and Agriculture Code §§ 62716 and 62717 which provide for amendment and termination of said QIP by referendum.

Furthermore, a legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and the unconstitutionality of a legislative act must be clearly shown with all doubts being resolved in favor of its validity. (Salmon Trollers Mktg. Assn. v. Fullerton, (1981)124 Cal. App. 3d 291).( See also San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 1070; Taxpayers for Improving Pub. Safety v. Schwarzenegger, (2009)172 Cal. App. 4th 74 and People v. Superior Ct. (J.C. Penney Corp.), (2019), 34 Cal. App. 5th 376, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 6, 2019). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action because Plaintiff has failed to, and cannot, allege facts to support its claim that the reauthorization of the milk quota program is unconstitutional. Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action therefore fail on the face of the pleadings.

At the pleadings stage, Plaintiff’s APA claim fails as a matter of law because a separate statute authorizes the QIP and the procedures for its promulgation, so the APA does not apply. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 14 and § 62757). Additionally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Voss v. Superior Ct., raises fact‑sensitive equivalency and scope questions not suited for judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917).

Furthermore, Food and Agriculture Code section 62757 and its related provisions sufficiently provide for notice and hearing that fulfils the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act and that demonstrate substantial compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.  (Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243, review denied.) 

The principal purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are “protection of the public and participation by the public”. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917). The notice procedure mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ensures the agency does not adopt rules only it knows about. Additionally, the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process related to the adoption of regulations are to provide notice to persons affected by a regulation and give them a voice in its creation. (640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 840, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied.). In that regard, the Court notes that the referendum held on the implementation of the QIP was open to milk producers in California, who are the principal parties affected by the regulation.  The Court also notes public hearings and public input undertaken by the PRB in developing the QIP. (P’s Complaint at Exhibit A). The Administrative Procedure Act is therefore not applicable hereto. (Food and Agriculture Code section 14; Gov. Code section 11346(a)).

A constitutional right is always subject to reasonable statutory limitations as to the time within which to enforce it, if the constitution itself does not provide otherwise. Statutes of limitation are consistent with due process where they allow the plaintiff or petitioner a reasonable time to bring the action.(Adoption of B.C., (2011)195 Cal. App. 4th 913) Generally, a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act is done and a suit may be maintained.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)

The four-year catchall statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 343 may apply to constitutional challenges seeking "relief not hereinbefore provided for". (People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.), (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376). The Statute of Limitations for a facial challenge to a statute begins to run from when the statute becomes effective.  (Hillsboro Props. v. City of Rohnert Park (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 379; Cnty. of Sonoma v. Superior Ct., (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1312). Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action are facial challenges alleging Section 62757 on its face unlawfully delegates legislative power and lacks guidance. Therefore, the Statute of Limitations in relation thereto under Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a) or § 343 began no later than 2018 when the QIP went into effect, making Plaintiff’s present 2025 filing untimely.

Plaintiff’s APA cause of action accrued when the QIP took effect in 2018, without, as claimed by Plaintiffs, complying with all the listed procedures, at which point this violation was complete with all its elements.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)). Plaintiff’s APA claims not under Gov. Code § 11523 are governed by the four-year period and accrued making a 2025 filing untimely Applying the four-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s APA claim is time barred.

Plaintiff’s reliance on continuing-violation or ongoing-collection authorities does not overcome the pleaded facial nature of the first and second claims or the APA accrual tied to QIP effectiveness on a record suitable for judgment on the pleadings. All of Plaintiff’s claims are therefore time-barred.

For the doctrine of Res Judicata to apply the requirements are that: (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding. (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Dep't of Conservation, (2017)11 Cal. App. 5th 1202). The party asserting res judicata has the burden of establishing each element. (Fed. Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., (2013)214 Cal. App. 4th 1520).

Parties are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC, (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172)) Consequently, privity analysis requires careful scrutiny and a close examination of the circumstances of each case to ensure fairness (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources, (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170).  Defendant Intervenor’s reliance on website links to from Stop QIP to the present Plaintiffs, and the presence of a witness in the prior matter who is now Plaintiff’s representative herein, as well as the use of the same law firm are inadequate to discharge Defendant Intervenor’s burden of establishing privity. Establishing privity is fact‑dependent. In the light of Defendant Intervenor’s failure to establish privity for purposes of res judicata, the Court need not address the elements of final adjudication on the merits on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding.

A defendant must demonstrate three elements to successfully assert a laches defense: (1) delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) prejudice to the party against whom laches is asserted. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd. (2007)., 53 Cal. App. 4th 1144).  The party asserting laches bears the burden of production and proof on each element of the defense. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267). Generally speaking, the existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267).

The delay element is measured by the period from when the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the allegedly infringing conduct, until the initiation of the lawsuit in which the defendant seeks to counterpose the laches defense. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd., supra).  Plaintiff’s delay in filing this action since 2018, at best, when it should have known of the challenged conduct amounts to unreasonable delay of eight years after said § 62757’s effective date and nearly seven years after QIP effectiveness.

However, Defendant and Defendant Intervenor have not discharged its burden regarding the issue of prejudice beyond assertions that Defendant Intervenors would not have invested tens of millions of dollars on a yearly basis absent a belief in the maintenance of the QIP in view of the fact that, as per Defendant Intervenor’s own claims, quota has been tradable for years and that  statutory provisions exist for the termination of the QIP. The defense of laches is therefore not well pled to entitle Defendant and Defendant Intervenor to judgment on that basis.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby denied as to Defendant and Defendant  Intervenor on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action on grounds of Plaintiff’s failure to state the asserted causes of action and on grounds that Defendant and Defendant  Intervenor’s Answers states sufficient facts to constitute defenses to said challenges. (Code of Civil Procedure § 438(c)). Plaintiff’s Complaint is accordingly dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Requests for Judicial Notice are granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452(d), 452 (c) and 452(h).

c) California Food and Agriculture Code § 62757 is a permissible delegation of implementation of California’s Quota Improvement Plan (QIP) to the California Department of Food and Agriculture in collaboration with the recommendations of the Producer Review Board. The policy and purposes behind said section 62757 to guide the adoption of administrative rules and regulations may be implied from the predecessor Gonsalves Pooling Act.  (Food & Agric. Code § 62700 et seq.; State Bd. of Educ. v. Honig, (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 720; Crim. Just. Legal Found. v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., (2025) 113 Cal. App. 5th 26; Sims v. Kernan, (2018) 30 Cal. App. 5th 10). Sufficient safeguards exist in the form of Food and Agriculture Code §§ 62716 and 62717 which provide for amendment and termination of said QIP by referendum.

Furthermore, a legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and the unconstitutionality of a legislative act must be clearly shown with all doubts being resolved in favor of its validity. (Salmon Trollers Mktg. Assn. v. Fullerton, (1981)124 Cal. App. 3d 291).( See also San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 1070; Taxpayers for Improving Pub. Safety v. Schwarzenegger, (2009)172 Cal. App. 4th 74 and People v. Superior Ct. (J.C. Penney Corp.), (2019), 34 Cal. App. 5th 376, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 6, 2019). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action because Plaintiff has failed to, and cannot, allege facts to support its claim that the reauthorization of the milk quota program is unconstitutional. Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action therefore fail on the face of the pleadings.

At the pleadings stage, Plaintiff’s APA claim fails as a matter of law because a separate statute authorizes the QIP and the procedures for its promulgation, so the APA does not apply. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 14 and § 62757). Additionally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Voss v. Superior Ct., raises fact‑sensitive equivalency and scope questions not suited for judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917).

Furthermore, Food and Agriculture Code section 62757 and its related provisions sufficiently provide for notice and hearing that fulfils the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act and that demonstrate substantial compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.  (Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243, review denied.) 

The principal purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are “protection of the public and participation by the public”. (Voss v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 916-917). The notice procedure mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ensures the agency does not adopt rules only it knows about. Additionally, the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process related to the adoption of regulations are to provide notice to persons affected by a regulation and give them a voice in its creation. (640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 840, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied.). In that regard, the Court notes that the referendum held on the implementation of the QIP was open to milk producers in California, who are the principal parties affected by the regulation.  The Court also notes public hearings and public input undertaken by the PRB in developing the QIP. (P’s Complaint at Exhibit A). The Administrative Procedure Act is therefore not applicable hereto. (Food and Agriculture Code section 14; Gov. Code section 11346(a)).

A constitutional right is always subject to reasonable statutory limitations as to the time within which to enforce it, if the constitution itself does not provide otherwise. Statutes of limitation are consistent with due process where they allow the plaintiff or petitioner a reasonable time to bring the action.(Adoption of B.C., (2011)195 Cal. App. 4th 913) Generally, a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitation begins to run, when the wrongful act is done and a suit may be maintained.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)

The four-year catchall statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 343 may apply to constitutional challenges seeking "relief not hereinbefore provided for". (People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.), (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376). The Statute of Limitations for a facial challenge to a statute begins to run from when the statute becomes effective.  (Hillsboro Props. v. City of Rohnert Park (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 379; Cnty. of Sonoma v. Superior Ct., (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1312). Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action are facial challenges alleging Section 62757 on its face unlawfully delegates legislative power and lacks guidance. Therefore, the Statute of Limitations in relation thereto under Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a) or § 343 began no later than 2018 when the QIP went into effect, making Plaintiff’s present 2025 filing untimely.

Plaintiff’s APA cause of action accrued when the QIP took effect in 2018, without, as claimed by Plaintiffs, complying with all the listed procedures, at which point this violation was complete with all its elements.  (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra, ((2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 821, as modified (July 18, 2001)). Plaintiff’s APA claims not under Gov. Code § 11523 are governed by the four-year period and accrued making a 2025 filing untimely Applying the four-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s APA claim is time barred.

Plaintiff’s reliance on continuing-violation or ongoing-collection authorities does not overcome the pleaded facial nature of the first and second claims or the APA accrual tied to QIP effectiveness on a record suitable for judgment on the pleadings. All of Plaintiff’s claims are therefore time-barred.

For the doctrine of Res Judicata to apply the requirements are that: (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding. (Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Dep't of Conservation, (2017)11 Cal. App. 5th 1202). The party asserting res judicata has the burden of establishing each element. (Fed. Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., (2013)214 Cal. App. 4th 1520).

Parties are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC, (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172)) Consequently, privity analysis requires careful scrutiny and a close examination of the circumstances of each case to ensure fairness (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources, (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170).  Defendant Intervenor’s reliance on website links to from Stop QIP to the present Plaintiffs, and the presence of a witness in the prior matter who is now Plaintiff’s representative herein, as well as the use of the same law firm are inadequate to discharge Defendant Intervenor’s burden of establishing privity. Establishing privity is fact‑dependent. In the light of Defendant Intervenor’s failure to establish privity for purposes of res judicata, the Court need not address the elements of final adjudication on the merits on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding.

A defendant must demonstrate three elements to successfully assert a laches defense: (1) delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) prejudice to the party against whom laches is asserted. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd. (2007)., 53 Cal. App. 4th 1144).  The party asserting laches bears the burden of production and proof on each element of the defense. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267). Generally speaking, the existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances. (Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267).

The delay element is measured by the period from when the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the allegedly infringing conduct, until the initiation of the lawsuit in which the defendant seeks to counterpose the laches defense. (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Internat., Ltd., supra).  Plaintiff’s delay in filing this action since 2018, at best, when it should have known of the challenged conduct amounts to unreasonable delay of eight years after said § 62757’s effective date and nearly seven years after QIP effectiveness.

However, Defendant Intervenor has not discharged its burden regarding the issue of prejudice beyond assertions that Defendant Intervenors would not have invested tens of millions of dollars on a yearly basis absent a belief in the maintenance of the QIP in view of the fact that as per Defendant Intervenor’s own claims quota has been tradable for years and that  statutory provisions exist for the termination of the QIP. The defense of laches is therefore not well pled to entitle Defendant Intervenor to judgment on that basis.

Accordingly, Defendant Intervenor’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby granted as to Defendant Intervenor on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action on grounds of Plaintiff’s failure to state the asserted causes of action and on grounds that Defendant Intervenor’s Answer states sufficient facts to constitute defenses to said challenges (Code of Civil Procedure § 438(c)). Plaintiff’s Complaint is accordingly dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant Intervenor’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452(d), 452 (c) and 452(h).

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***