November 18, 2025

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

CV-24-006526 – SMITH, VENSCOTT VEROL vs. ARIAS, YESENIA – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Golden Age Care Home is ordered to provide the subpoenaed records not later than December 8, 2025.  Additionally, the Court awards a lowered amount of $660 in monetary sanctions against Golden Age Care Home. 

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 Three) – HEARING REQUIRED.

The parties have effectively resolved most of the issues.

The Court has some clarifying questions but is likely to resolve the remaining issue in Defendant’s favor if it understands the issues correctly

CV-25-001149 – BANK OF AMERICA NA vs. DELGADO, DOMINIQUE C – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – DENIED.

Defendant’s answer – originally filed on 3/18/25 – was subsequently stricken when Defendant failed to remit filing fees. (See Court’s 4/2/25 Order.)  

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

CV-24-008618 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs. MEDINA, ELISEO – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation – CONTINUED to December 11, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The Court holds law and motion hearings at 8:30 am unless otherwise specially set. Unfortunately, the instant notice of motion gave notice for the wrong hearing time—9:30 am instead of 8:30 am. Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to December 11, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for an amended notice of hearing and notice of ruling to be served on Defendant. The amended notice and notice of this ruling are to be served at least 16 court days before the continued hearing date, plus time added pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) depending on the method of service. The proof of service is to be filed at least five court days before the continued hearing date pursuant to Rule 3.1300(c) of the California Rules of Court.

CV-23-001140 – CONTRERAS, MARIA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME STORE – Defendant Ashley Furniture Industries LLC’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Maria Contreras and Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification.

By way of this motion, Defendant Ashley Furniture Industries LLC (“Moving Defendant”) seeks to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Maria Contreras. Moving Defendant had noticed Plaintiff’s deposition to be held in person in Modesto on August 22, 2025. Counsel for Moving Defendant emailed Plaintiff’s counsel two days before the deposition to confirm the deposition date, time, and location. Moving Defendant’s counsel then traveled to Modesto on the date of the deposition and attended. A court reporter, videographer, and translator were also present. However, neither the Plaintiff nor her counsel appeared.

The main dispute here is over the fact that Moving Defendant noticed the deposition for in-person only. Plaintiff asserts that it is her right to insist on a remote deposition. That is incorrect. Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.250(a) provides, “Unless the court orders otherwise under Section 2025.260, the deposition of a natural person, whether or not a party to the action, shall be taken at a place that is, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition, either within 75 miles of the deponent's residence, or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent's residence.” (Emphasis added.)

As Moving Defendant notes in its reply to the opposition, if Plaintiff objected to having her deposition taken in person, she should have timely notified Moving Defendant of that fact before the deposition and also moved for a protective order seeking to modify the method of appearance.

Plaintiff’s counsel states in his declaration filed in opposition to the motion that his client is ill, cannot walk properly, and is disabled and that appearing in person for her deposition would be “burdensome and difficult.” However, Plaintiff’s counsel also states that his client has traveled to Mexico for family reasons. If his client is well enough to travel to Mexico, then the Court cannot see why she cannot attend her deposition in person, as specified in the notice of deposition.

Plaintiff’s counsel also states that his client will be in Mexico “for a few months” to care for her disabled sister after the death of their brother and alternatively asks for a stay. This request is not properly before the Court. Plaintiff may, if she wishes, file an ex parte motion that includes proof of her brother’s death and a declaration directly from her explaining exactly how long she expects to remain in Mexico.

Barring the grant of any such ex parte motion for a temporary stay, the Court orders Plaintiff to make herself available for an in-person deposition within the next 30 days at a location chosen by Moving Defendant that complies with Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.250(a). Plaintiff is further ordered to produce at the deposition the documents described in the exhibit attached to the deposition notice.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g) provides that a court shall impose a monetary sanction “against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated” if a motion to compel a deposition is granted, or if a party or the party’s attorney attends a deposition and the deponent fails to appear “unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Here, Moving Defendant has asked for sanctions against Plaintiff Maria Contreras and her attorney of record, Law Office of Jacob Partiyeli Complex Litigation Bureau, in the amount of $5,185.40, which represents the following fees and costs: $1,130.80 for 4.4 hours of attorney time at $257 per hour for traveling to the location of the deposition and attending it; $2,452.60 for the court reporter, videographer, and translator fees; $1,028.00 for 4 hours of attorney time at $257 per hour for drafting the instant motion; $514.00 for 2 hours of attorney time at $257 per hour for preparing for and attending the hearing on this matter; and $60 in costs for the filing fee. 

Plaintiff’s counsel states in his declaration filed in opposition to the motion that his client is low-income and that, if the Court considers imposing sanctions, any sanctions should be directed only to him, not to his client.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g) does not expressly authorize sanctions against the attorney for the deponent, but rather, only against the deponent him- or herself (or any party with whom the deponent is affiliated). However, Moving Defendant also asked for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030. The latter statute does explicitly allow for sanctions against an attorney for misuse of the discovery process. The Court considers the failure to object in advance of the deposition and failure to appear at the noticed time and place to be misuses.

Given the financial circumstances of the Plaintiff and her attorney’s request, the Court finds that it would be unjust to impose monetary sanctions directly against Plaintiff. However, at least some sanctions are warranted. The Court therefore imposes sanctions in the amount of $950 against Attorney Jacob Partiyeli Law Office of Jacob Partiyeli Complex Litigation Bureau. The sanctions shall be paid to Bowman and Brooke, LLP. Plaintiff’s counsel can expect that any further violations for misuse of the discovery process will result in sanctions in an amount exceeding $1,000 that must be reported to the State Bar.

Moving Defendant to submit a proposed order within 10 court days that conforms to this ruling.

PR-25-001087 – DISPUTED CLAIM OF MCGUIRE, JEREMIAH – Motion to Seal Court Records – CONTINUED to December 16, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

There is a page missing from the scanned version of the lodged, unredacted document. It is possible that the error was on the Court’s part and occurred during the scanning process. Alternatively, the page may be missing from the original. Moving Party is directed to contact the clerk’s office to discuss this issue and correct the discrepancy.

More importantly, it appears that some of the information Moving Party wished to seal was publicly filed. The Court refers Moving Party to pdf pages 100-101 of the publicly filed document. Moving Party may wish to re-check the publicly filed version and amend its motion to seal. It may also wish to ask for a Court order permitting replacement of the publicly filed version due to the oversight. The Court would also appreciate it if the amended motion more clearly identified the sections of the papers to be sealed.

Accordingly, this matter is continued to December 16, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Any amended moving papers are to be filed and served no later than December 1, 2025. Any opposition or responsive document is to be filed and served no later than December 9, 2025.

The Court notes that the next hearing on the petition to approve the minor’s compromise is currently set for December 2, 2025. The Court RE-SETS the hearing on the petition to January 6, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Moving Party to give notice.

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

CV-24-006869 – CARRILLO, FERNANDO, JR. vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 18, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

In view of Defendant’s representation that it has offered to provide supplemental responses and documents pursuant to a proposed stipulated protective order, the Court finds that the potential exists for the parties to narrow and/or resolve the issues in dispute if genuine efforts to meet and confer are undertaken in good faith.  Therefore, the hearing is continued for this purpose and counsel are instructed to meet and confer further, in person or by telephone, toward this end.

Civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and the Court believes that the instant motion presents the type of dispute that should be amenable to informal resolution if genuine efforts are expended in good faith.

The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement describing their efforts in this regard and briefly setting forth their positions on the items remaining in dispute, if any.  The Joint Status Statement shall be submitted no later than December 12, 2025.

In addition, the Court provides the following general guidance in order to assist the parties in their meet and confer efforts herein: When faced with similar discovery disputes, the Court usually orders the parties to produce documents and/or information relative to the following:

1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

3. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center

concerning the subject vehicle.

4. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the

subject vehicle.

5. Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and

provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the

date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

6. Any internal analysis, investigation, and/or communications regarding the

same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model

as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

7. Any customer complaints regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in

vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were

sold within the State of California.

8. All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for

repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the

date of purchase to the present.

9. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects

claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject

vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

10. Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or

consequential damages.

CV-24-007835 – ZHANG, WENJEN vs. SUNRISE MHC LLC – a) Defendant Sunrise MHC LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 10, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. b) Defendant 433 South 7^th Street LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 10, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are continued, as above, to be heard after Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings.

CV-25-000278 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs. CASTANEDA, RICARDO – Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication Pursuant to CCP 437C – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, and in view of the lack of opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no defense to the causes of action set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint by producing evidence of each element of the cause of action asserted therein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the principal amount of $14,161.37 against Defendant herein.  Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs pursuant to the agreement between the parties and the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 1032; Plaintiff shall submit a memorandum of costs in that regard within the statutory period.

CV-25-000613 – LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs. DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Counsel has failed to submit proof of service of the moving papers on the client. In addition, the supporting declaration and proposed order fail to identify the pending proceedings in the matter.

CV-25-005435 – IN RE 517 FORT HENRY DRIVE MODESTO CA 95354 – Petitioner’s Petition Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale – GRANTED, in part, and CONTINUED to January 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

Based on the Trustee’s supplemental declaration and proof of service of all relevant documents concerning this matter on all potential interested parties herein, the Court finds  that the Trustee, Quality Loan Service Corp., has now properly fulfilled its statutory obligations relative to the previously deposited surplus funds and is again discharged of any further responsibility for the disbursement of the sale proceeds and is not required to make any further appearances in this matter.

The Court now sets the matter for a further hearing, as above, for consideration of all claims submitted with regard to the subject surplus funds in accordance with Civ. Code § 2924j(d). The Courtroom Clerk shall serve notice of the Court’s ruling herein on all interested parties identified in the proof of service attached to the Trustee’s 9-8-25 declaration. 

Any additional claims to the subject funds must be submitted to the Court no later than 15 days prior to the hearing date.

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

CV-23-001227 – CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs. TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Propounded to Defendant Turlock Irrigation District – WITHDRAWN.

CV-25-003561 – KOURY, JOHN vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Defendant’s Motion to Entry of Protection Order to Govern Production of Confidential Materials – WITHDRAWN.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-25-000222 – JCS PROPERTIES INC vs. CORTES, ROSITA – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Writ of Possession – HEARING REQUIRED