November 13, 2025

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

CV-24-005630 – RIGDON, DAVID vs COWELL, MARY – Defendant Candice Stacy’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Procedural Compliance; Notice and Service

The motion (MC-051), declaration (MC-052), and proposed order (MC-053) were electronically filed on October 16, 2025, and set for hearing on November 13, 2025.

The motion identifies the client and her last known address: Candice Stacy (erroneously sued as Candice Cowell), 2536 Channel Drive, Riverbank, California 95367.

Proof of service reflects service of the Notice of Motion and Motion, supporting Declaration, and Proposed Order by mail and electronic service on the client at 2536 Channel Drive, Riverbank, CA 95367, and at her email address as set forth in Court documents, on October 16, 2025.

  The supporting declaration states counsel confirmed the client’s physical mailing address by email on October 2, 2025, and that the client was made aware of the motion, satisfying California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 service requirements.

The Court finds that notice and service were properly executed and timely.

Good Cause

Counsel shows sufficient reasons to withdraw under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2). The declaration and Exhibit A reflect a July 3, 2025, federal order declaring Nationwide has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant Candice Stacy aka Candice Cowell for this action, supporting good cause for withdrawal.

The withdrawal is effective upon filing and service on the client of the signed MC-053 order.

        

The next scheduled hearing is a Case Management Conference on November 24, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Department 21 of the Stanislaus Superior Court; the client must prepare for and attend that hearing if self-represented.

CV-24-006198 – NADER, SOHIL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION – Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion to Stay Action – GRANTED.

This is a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).The Complaint was filed August 6, 2024; the First Amended Complaint on November 1, 2024; and the Second Amended Complaint on February 19, 2025. No trial date is set. A hearing on Defendant’s motion to stay is scheduled for November 13, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., Dept. 21. Defendant is represented by Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Plaintiff is represented by Aegis Law Firm, PC.

Costco moves to stay this later-filed PAGA action because it is subsumed by a prior-filed federal class action, Martin Reyes et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:24-CV-00300-WBS-DB, and a prior-filed state PAGA action, Martin Reyes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 24CV340092. The Santa Clara court has already stayed the Reyes PAGA action pending resolution of the federal class action.

The Court has discretion to deny this motion, but the prior Reyes lawsuits will cover the same issues as in this case.  In Shaw v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal. App. 5th 245, the Court noted that four-corners similarity as required for abatement pleading is not required for exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.

The differences in named plaintiffs and small differences in causes of action are insufficient to remove the discretion from this court to stay the case pending the Reyes actions under Shaw. The Court exercises that discretion, and sets a further Case Status Review for April 3, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. and vacates all other dates.

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

CV-24-007109 – GHASHEHKOSROV, DANYEL vs CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel CSAA Insurance Exchange to Produce Their Employees: Adam Harper, Kelly Puppeteer, and Craig Stubblefield to Appear for Deposition and an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,060 – DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the depositions of Adam Harper, Kelly Pupeter, and “Craig” Stubblefield is DENIED for many reasons, including the reasons set forth below.

First, the exhibits referenced in the declaration filed in support of the motion are missing.

Second, it is unclear to the Court why Moving Party contends in his reply that “Defendant at no time provided any objections to Plaintiff's first deposition notice” (Reply, at p. 2) when Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel dated June 10, 2025—eight days before the first noticed deposition date—that addresses discovery matters and contains sections clearly labeled “Objections” directed to the unilateral deposition notices and the document requests. (See 10/30/25 O’Connell Decl., Exh. B, at pdf pp. 16-17.)

Third, all the deponents are located outside the state of California, therefore rendering the first deposition notices (which set the depositions in Napa, California) defective. Despite being informed of this fact and also of the fact that there is no “Craig” Stubblefield, but rather, a Gregory Stubblefield, Plaintiff still re-noticed the deposition of “Craig” Stubblefield to take place in Napa, California. Also despite the fact that it appears no new deposition notice for Kelly Pupeter was served, Plaintiff still moves to compel her deposition.

Fourth, Plaintiff’s counsel made no effort to genuinely meet and confer. “It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (Code Civ.Proc., § 2016 et seq.) (hereinafter ‘Discovery Act’) that civil discovery be essentially self-executing. [Citation.] The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain ‘an informal resolution of each issue.’ [Citations.] This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....’ [Citation.] This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes. [Citations.]” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434–1435.)

Calling the Defendant’s objections “false” and “bogus,” consistently using an accusatory tone, and filling communications with insults such as “go find another case to meet your billing quota” (10/30/24 O’Connell Decl., Exh. D., at pdf p. 20) and ultimatums repeatedly threatening to immediately file a motion to compel are not actions that are conducive to arriving at an informal resolution to a dispute. The Court notes that civility to opposing counsel is part of an attorney’s duties. “Since 2014, the oath new attorneys of this state must take requires them to ‘vow to treat opposing counsel with “dignity, courtesy, and integrity.” ’ [Citation.] Although Smith asserts he took the attorney oath before it was so revised, as an officer of the court he owed the court and opposing counsel ‘ “professional courtesy.” ’ [Citations.]) Rather than a new requirement, the ‘ “civility oath” ’ added by the rules in 2014 ‘serves as an important reminder to lawyers of their general ethical responsibilities in the pursuit of all their professional affairs, including litigation.’ [Citation.] [C]ivility ‘is an ethical component of professionalism,’ and it ‘is socially advantageous [as] it lowers the costs of dispute resolution.’ [Citation.]” (Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 908, 922, reh'g denied (Oct. 25, 2023), review denied (Jan. 24, 2024) [emphases in original; footnote omitted].)

Defendant moves for sanctions only as against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(h) and (i) for making this motion without substantial justification and for failing to meet and confer in good faith. Defendant asks for sanctions in the amount of $3,237.50, which represents 14.5 hours of work at $205 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.

Because Defendant filed an opposition, not the moving papers, there was no $60 filing fee. As for the amount sought, the Court will grant sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney Eric Bryan Seuthe of the Law Offices of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates in the amount of $950. The sanctions shall be paid to Porter Scott, A Professional Corporation. Counsel can expect that any further violations of the duty of civility will result in a sanction exceeding $1,000 that must be reported to the State Bar.

CV-24-009782 – SAMPAG, JEANNELYN R vs IMPORT DEALER SERVICES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The unopposed motion of Attorney James G. Motter of Motter Law, Inc., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client.

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

CV-22-001828 – LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED.

Defendant, as the moving party, has met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to submit admissible evidence which demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of material fact.  Plaintiffs have met their burden in this regard and have demonstrated material disputes of fact concerning the issues set forth in Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at a minimum, as follows:

Issue 1: 4, 25, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44,  48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78

Issue 2: 4, 25, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44,  48, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77

Issue 3:  25, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44,  48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 69, 71, 72, 74,75, 77, 78

Issue 4: 25, 31, 32,  39, 40, 44, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78

Issue 5: 31, 32,  39, 40, 44, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78

In addition, Plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts demonstrate disputed factual issues pertinent to all issues identified by Defendant’s motion.

The objections to evidence submitted by both parties are OVERRULED.

CV-25-000429 – PACAHUALA, DONATO vs VIZCARRA, YOLANDA PORRAS – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment – GRANTED.

The Court notes the untimely submission of Plaintiff’s opposition brief and has exercised discretion to consider the arguments therein. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated entitlement to mandatory relief, based on the declaration of counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)  Defendant shall file her Answer to the Complaint within 10 days.

CV-25-002057 – JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs LANDRUM, CHRISTINA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of acts be Deemed Admitted – DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that both the underlying discovery and the instant motion were purportedly served by mail directed to Defendant at an address on “Retaluma Lane,” when the street address identified in her pleadings is on “Petaluma Lane.”  In view of this discrepancy, the Court cannot conclude that either document was properly served.

CV-25-004992 – ISSAZADEH, JOSEF vs HUTTO, BRIAN – Defendants, Brian Hutto and Brian K. Hutto, D.M.D. Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – OVERRULED.

The Court finds the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to state the challenged cause of action.  The failure to plead specific dates does not render the Complaint subject to general demurrer. (See, e.g. United Western Medical Centers v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) In addition, the factual allegations are described with sufficient certainty for Defendants to ascertain what they are being asked to respond to.

The Court further notes that Defendants’ reply appears to reference other Superior Court orders. This type of citation is generally not permitted. (See, e.g., TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 n.2.) The attempt to use trial court orders to persuade the Court is facially improper. The judicial canons require the Court to exercise its duty of independence. (See Judicial Canon 1.)

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

CV-23-004868 – VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUE vs SOTO, LUIS -Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement – DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate timely notice on Defendants. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1005 ). Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

CV-23-006110 – LARGENT, CINDY vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance of Defendant DMC’s Summary Judgement motion is hereby granted for good cause, to permit the deposition of critical witnesses Drs. Liu and Verde. (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c )

The Summary Judgment motion is hereby continued to January 15, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-000225 – CRUZ, JESSE vs RANGER PIPELINES INCORPORATED - Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant Ranger Pipeline's Deposition Subpoena to USA Express Legal & Investigative Services, in.; Request for Sanctions in the Amount $,000.00 Against the Defendant and/or Their Counsel of Record, Pursuant to C.C.P.1987.2 Et Seq. and 2023.010, Et Seq. – GRANTED.

The Court finds that it cannot make a determination as to whether the information sought is subject to absolute work product privilege without an in-camera examination of the requested information.   (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1080, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied; League of California Cities v. Superior Court (2015), 241 Cal.App.4th 976).

The Court also finds that the information sought by Defendants by said subpoena is protected by qualified work product privilege.  (Coito v. Superior Ct., (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480). 

The Court further finds that given Defendant’s awareness of Ms. Knab’s existence as a witness in June 2025, Defendants’ failure to take her statement since then, Ms. Knab’s continued availability for said statement and the legislature’s intent to prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts, that Defendants have not demonstrated the required injustice or prejudice to overcome the qualified work product privilege. ( Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2018.020 and 2018.030; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1080, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied; (Armenta v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 525, rehearing denied ;Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126). 

The Court therefore finds that good cause exists for the application of the attorney work product privilege.  (2,022 Ranch, L.L.C. v. Superior Court (2003),113 Cal.App.4th 1377, modified on denial of rehearing).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The deposition subpoena issued by Defendants to USA Express Legal & Investigative Services, Inc. dated September 25, 2025, is hereby quashed. (Civ. Proc. Code section 1987.1; Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Assn., (2007).  151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 583).

Plaintiff is awarded his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of $2,2000 incurred in bringing this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code section 1987.2

CV-25-006617 – EXPLOITED MILK PRODUCERS INC vs ROSS, KAREN – Defendant California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Secretary Karen Ross’ Motion for Change of Venue – DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, a Defendant need not have filed its Answer to file a motion for change of venue, unless the motion is made on grounds of convenience of witnesses. (Cholakian & Assocs. v. Superior Ct., (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 361).

The Superior Court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is generally the proper court for the trial of the action. (Civ. Proc. Code § 395 (a); K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4^th 290

However, “the county in which the cause, or some part of the cause, arose, is the proper county for the trial” of an action ‘Against a public officer or person especially appointed to execute the duties of a public officer, for an act done by the officer or person in virtue of the office, or against a person who, by the officer's command or in the officer's aid, does anything touching the duties of the officer.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 393; California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826; Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361). 

Given that Defendant is a public officer, Plaintiffs’ claims that some of its members conduct business in Stanislaus County and therefore suffered the effect of the challenged order in Stanislaus County, Stanislaus County is the proper venue for this action. (California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826).

Additionally, as to the issue of the convenience of witnesses, given Defendant’s reliance on potential witnesses mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint as to what testimony will be material herein, Defendant may arguably proceed to make this argument. (Cholakian & Assocs. v. Superior Ct., (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 361). In this regard, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated the Mr. Houston, an alleged material witness who is retired from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, (CDFA) as well as other potential witnesses who are also former employees of the CDFA reside in Sacramento, so as make it more convenient for this matter to be transferred to Sacramento County,

As to the issue of the interests of justice, the Court finds that the existence of prior similar cases challenging the Quota Improvement Program that were addressed in Sacramento County Superior Court does not necessitate the transfer of this case to Sacramento County.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.

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-23-001512 – CASTELLANOS, ROGOBERTO vs SEAMAN, ROBIN – Motion for Restitutionary and Compensatory Damages– HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-25-001064 – SEDONA CONDOMINIUMS LLC vs HALL, ALIYAH – Motion for Summary Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.