Civil Tentative Rulings

April 22, 2026

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

CV-24-004750 - GOODY, JAMES JOSEPH vs FARINELLI, ALBERT - Defendants Maria Luz Vargas and Jesse Vargas' Motion to Amend Answer - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendants Maria Luz Vargas and Jesse Vargas (the “Vargas Defendants”) move to amend their answer to include three new affirmative defenses. The motion is unopposed.

“The court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “Such amendments generally may occur ‘at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice’ (§ 576) so long as the amendments do not raise new issues against which the opposing party has had no opportunity to defend. [Citations.]” (Doe v. Second Street Corp. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 552, 577.)

Here, the Vargas Defendants seek leave to amend their Answer to include three new affirmative defenses that were not included in their original Answer. The first is the assertion of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine; the second is the assertion of Prop 213; and the third is the assertion of principles regarding recovery of reasonable medical expenses. (Memorandum at 2.) The Vargas Defendants contend that sufficient facts supporting the proposed affirmative defenses became known after the parties engaged in limited discovery. The Vargas Defendants also contend that there will be no undue prejudice or delay because Plaintiff has known of the facts all along and because trial is set for September 22, 2026, which is 7 months after the filling of the instant motion.

Having considered the Vargas Defendants’ motion, memorandum and accompanying declaration, and proposed amendments, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the file. Therefore, the Court directs the moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling. The moving party shall file the amended Answer within five (5) court days of the signed order.

CV-25-005773 - ART BUILDINGS LLC vs ROMSPEN CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - Defendants Ric (Atherstone) LLC and Romspen California Mortgage Limited Partnership's Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

PROCEDURAL NOTES

The first demurrer was sustained without leave to amend after the Court considered a very late-filed opposition. This round, Plaintiff served the opposition, but did not file it prior to hearing. Plaintiff alleges that the document is in the Court docket, but it is not. Plaintiff apparently attempted to file the opposition the day before the original hearing date of April 9.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendant RMLP agreed to loan Plaintiff up to $18 million in a contract signed on February 9, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that RMLP engaged in “unreasonable delays, arbitrary refusals to approve draw requests, imposition of requirements not stated in the Loan Agreement, and inconsistent application of draw standards.” No specific acts of wrongdoing are alleged. One term of the contract is that, “each advance shall be made in the sole discretion of the Lender.”

Plaintiff does not alleged a foreclosure date, but filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition “as a defensive measure” on that date. Plaintiff alleges it did not have a “fully mature or quantifiable claime for breach of contract.” It says that, “Any omission of affirmative claims in the bankruptcy schedules was inadvertent and not intended to mislead the bankruptcy court or creditors.”

The Court takes judicial notice of all documents supplied by Defendant. On March 22, 2024 RMLP recorded a notice of default. The Court does not take judicial notice of the amount alleged to be in arrears, because it cannot take judicial notice of factual assertions for the truth of the matter. On June 12, 2025, RMLP assigned all rights to RIC.

The Opposition says the offending action is from a March 9, 2023 Second Draw Request.

ANALYSIS

The Second Amended Complaint still does not state a cause of action, does not state any reason for damages, and does not give any details about the alleged malfeasance by either Defendant permitting some inference of the violation of good faith and fair dealing. It appears to allege a pattern where none existed.

Plaintiff says explicitly in the Opposition that, “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants: - received the March 9, 2023 Second Draw Request – internally reviewed it by March 17, 2023, - failed to approve, reject or identify any deficiency, and – failed to fund the draw.” The Court attempted to find this language in the Second Amended Complaint and failed.

As far as any ability to amend this complaint further, Plaintiff’s current claim is that there is a single draw about a year before the foreclosure that was denied. Plaintiff’s allegations do not, at all, articulate damages. The Court has given Plaintiff extra opportunities to ensure that sustaining the matter without leave to amend would not be due to a lack of opportunity for Plaintiff to explain its position as to why the failure to grant the draw was somehow wrongful when the terms of the contract expressly permitted this.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that judicial estoppel is improper at the pleading stage. Plaintiff does not cite a case for this proposition, probably because none exist. To the contrary, The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal (2010) 183 Cal.App.4^th 831 holds the opposite. Nonetheless, nondisclosure in bankruptcy filings, standing alone, is insufficient to support the finding of bad faith necessary. (Myahara v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5^th 687.) The Court does not reach this issue.

CV-25-011565 - HUGHES, GREGORY ALAN vs BREWER, ZACHARY E, MD - Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint - OVERRULED in part; SUSTAINED without leave to amend in part.

As to the Second Cause of Action, while Defendant’s argument has some merit, the Court believes the combination of allegations inclusive of policy and procedure allegations and specific allegations tying this Defendant to the specific allegations of equipment failures are sufficient, even if partially duplicative.  The Court tends to agree with Plaintiff that Perez v. Golden Enterprise (2012) 209 Cal.App.4^th 1228 does not command a different result.

As to the Fourth Cause of Action, Defendant asserts this is a duplicative cause of action. In Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC (2021) 65 Cal.App.5^th 1145, the appellate court struck a separate NIED cause of action because “no such independent tort exists.” No leave to amend can repair the violation of the rule. Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant cites no case law for his proposal is in error.

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

CV-24-004072 - ZOLLIN, TIMOTHY vs BORRAYES, ALBIN HELVIE DE LEON - Defendants Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., and Ryder Truck Rental LT's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Pursuant to the Court’s April 15, 2026 Minute Order, the hearing on this matter is CONTINUED to July 30, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-25-004358 - TOSTADO, ANTONIO, Jr vs PEREZ, URIEL - a) Defendant Uriel Perez's Motion for an Order that Defendant's Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions to Antonio Tostado Jr. - CONTINUED to April 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Defendant's Uriel Perez's Motion to Compel Verifications to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Antonio Tostado Jr. - CONTINUED to April 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22; c) Defendant's Uriel Perez's Motion to Compel Verifications to Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Antonio Tostado Jr. - CONTINUED to April 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-c) The hearing on this matter is continued on the Court's own motion for coordination with the related motion currently set for April 23, 2026, and for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to April 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-26-000863 - GONZALEZ, JOSE vs SILVA, BRANDON - Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint - CONTINUED to May 13, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The hearing on this matter is continued on the Court's own motion for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to May 13, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

PR-26-000163 - ESTATE OF LEGGETT, PATRICIA - Petitioner’s Motion to Support Lis Pendens - DENIED as procedurally improper.

The Court finds there is no statutory authority authorizing a party to bring a motion to “support,” “maintain,” or affirmatively validate a lis pendens. The lis pendens statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.1 et seq.) provide an exclusive procedure for judicial review of a lis pendens through a noticed motion to expunge. Because no such motion is before the Court, the Court declines to adjudicate the merits of the lis pendens at this time. The ruling is without prejudice to any party seeking relief under the procedures authorized by statute.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-24-010408 - CARDOSO, ADAM vs DAMBACHER, STEPHANIE - a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party; c) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

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 - Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Motion to Compel Deposition of PMG of Defendant Adcomm, Inc - DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court finds that Defendant Chalal is entitled to depose Adcomm’s PMQ. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010; 2025.410 and 2025.450; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).

However, in view of Adcomm’s timely objection to said deposition on grounds that Adcomm’s Counsel had a pending motion to withdraw as Counsel, no basis exists under the circumstances for the Court to compel the deposition of Adcomm’s PMQ. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010; 2025.410, 2025.450 and 2025.280(a)).

Accordingly, Defendant Chahal’s motion is hereby denied, without prejudice.

CV-23-004665 - PAULEEN BAJWA & MCKELLAR ENTERPRISES vs RAS AUTOMOTIVE INC - Plaintiff Pauleen Bajwa & Mckellar Enterprises’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

In view of the potentially dispositive/mooting effect of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Answer to Complaint, and of Defendant’s Motion for Order pursuant to CCP 664.6 for an order that the case has settled and directing execution of the settlement agreement on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, this matter is continued to June 9, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court. 

CV-23-004950 - TEALL, FRANKIE ENALINA ALEZSANDRA vs JUDGE, JORAVAR SINGH - a) Defendant’s Motion to Strike - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part with leave to amend; b) Defendant Load Karma Inc.'s Motion for an Order Sustaining Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED.

a) As with Defendant’s prior demurrer Defendant’s contentions as to the application of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) involve factual determinations which are not suitable for this motion to strike.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to plead factual allegations sufficient to support Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages.  (Civ. Code § 3294; Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975), 50 Cal.App.3d 949 ;King v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, (2020), 53 Cal. App. 5th 675, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 24, 2020); College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994), 8 Cal.4th 704, as modified.  In addition, Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege corporate ratification by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (Civ. Code § 3294 (b)).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is granted as to Plaintiff’s prayer for relief for punitive damages only.

b) As with Defendant’s prior demurrer Defendant’s contentions as to the application of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) involve factual determinations which are not suitable on demurrer.

Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state her causes of action for Negligence and Negligent Supervision and to put Defendant on sufficient notice of the causes of action against it and to permit a responsive pleading.  (Thomas v. Regents of Univ. of California, (2023), 97 Cal. App. 5th 587, reh'g denied (Dec. 29, 2023), review denied (Feb. 28, 20240).

Group pleadings are not automatically demurrable and may be appropriate in some instances. Further Plaintiff’s identify Defendant by name in several paragraphs of the First Amended in Complaint where allegations are made against Defendants. (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., (2009)172 Cal. App. 4th 1133).

No declaratory relief is sought against Defendant making Defendant’s demurrer on that ground inapplicable.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e))

The court declines to strike the demurrer as requested. However, Defendant’s Counsel is hereby admonished for citing to non-existent quotations in its moving papers .The Court also notes the Demurrer’s purported quotations from the First Amended Complaint, which, at the very least, do not exist in the cited paragraphs. Defendant’s Counsel is reminded of her obligations to the Court pursuant to  Business and Professions Code, section 6068, subdivision (d) as well as the California Ruled of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1), among others. Counsel must ensure that any future briefing contains accurate quotations and citations.

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-26-000156 - FREGOSO, FRANCISCO vs DELGADO, JOEL O FLORES - Defendant’s Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000194 - SMITH, MICHAEL S vs HOLM, MISTY - Defendant’s Motion to Compel for Discovery - HEARING REQUIRED.