December 16, 2025

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

CV-25-000819 – MALLEA, JACINTO STEPHEN vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production and Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-b) The Court has gone through the several thousand pages of pleadings.

Are there any remaining issues with verifications?

The Court is reluctantly considering reference to a discovery referee as there are multiple issues to be resolved, multiple motions to be heard simultaneously, and the “numerous and voluminous documents to be reviewed (especially in connection with issues based on assertion of a privilege) make the inquiry “inordinately time consuming.” [Taggares v. Sup.Ct. (Mitchell) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105-106 - “Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court's time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference”].

Further, there appear to be factual disputes (such as page-count of provided documents) which require resolution.

CV-25-004984 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs LEE, LORELLA – Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions as Admitted - DROPPED. 

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

CV-23-003470 – STONER, MARC C vs IVERSON, DAYNA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Trustee Jennifer R Stoner in Place of Plaintiff Marc C Stoner – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.31. The Court finds adequate proof of death and that Jennifer R. Stoner, the surviving spouse and Successor Trustee of the The Marc C. Stoner Trust dated February 16, 2020, qualifies as successor‑in‑interest under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.11. Jennifer R. Stoner is therefore substituted for Marc C. Stoner as Plaintiff. The case caption shall be amended to read: “Trustee Jennifer R. Stoner, as successor‑in‑interest to Marc C. Stoner, Plaintiff, v. Dayna Iverson aka Dayna Iverson-Stoner, Defendant.”

The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion and adds the following instructions: Plaintiff shall file (1) a Notice of Substitution and Amended Caption within 10 court days and (2) an amended pleading within 20 court days. The amended pleading shall conform to this ruling, reflecting the substitution and capacity, but will make no substantive changes other than those necessary to effect substitution. No substantive amendment is authorized by this ruling; any such amendment requires leave of the Court.

All dates remain as set: Settlement Conference on February 2, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; and Jury Trial on February 24, 2026, at 9:30 am in Department 22.

CV-25-007517 – APOLLO AG TECHNOLOGIES LLC vs BLUE TECH WATER INC – Plaintiff Apollo Ag Technologies LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Sharon Markowitz – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for admission of Sharon Markowitz pro hac vice is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion.

CV-25-006852 – GIUNTOLI, LAURENCE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-b) Per the Court’s tentative ruling posted for the December 10, 2025 hearing, the Court proposed continuing these matters to January 13, 2026, stating:

“a) Demurrer

“This matter is CONTINUED to January 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion to strike.

“b) Motion to Strike

“Per minute order dated October 28, 2025, the Court noted that an opposition and reply to a motion to strike had been filed, but the Court had no record of the moving papers. The Court therefore continued the related demurrer and set the motion to strike for the same date with instructions to file the moving papers for the motion to strike at least 16 court days before the hearing date.  Despite these instructions, the court file still fails to show any moving papers. The Court will therefore CONTINUE this matter one more time, to January 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, with the same instructions. If the moving papers are not filed at least 16 court days before the next hearing, the Court will deny the motion to strike due to the lack of papers.”

Plaintiff’s counsel asked to be heard, arguing that Defendant should not be given another opportunity to file the moving papers on the motion to strike. Defendant’s counsel indicated that he would be appearing but seems to have technical issues. The Court therefore continued these matters to December 16, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 and will now hear Plaintiff’s arguments on this matter.

PR-25-001087 – DISPUTED CLAIM OF MCGUIRE, JEREMIAH – Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Court Records - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs clarification regarding the status of the motion to seal in light of the amended petition that was filed on December 1, 2025. The Court is also confused why a proposed order was submitted on December 1, 2025, stating that the Court heard this matter on November 18, 2025, and granted the motion, when the motion was actually continued.

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

CV-22-004004 – GRAY, EDWARD vs SKY HOTELS INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and Paga Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-2-26                    Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator

1-23-26  Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.

3-10-26  Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds

4-9-26                    Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for May 1, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-22-005623 – DOE, JOHN vs ROE 1 DISTRICT – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Special Interrogatories, Set Six, to Defendant Roe 1 District by Plaintiff John Doe – HEARING REQUIRED.

On its face, Defendant’s response to the interrogatory in question appears to be sufficient, yet  Plaintiff contends that the interrogatory was intended to require additional investigation into materials previously identified by the District. In that regard, it appears to the Court that the handling of such materials was the subject of previous agreement between the parties based on meet-and-confer discussions.

Under the circumstances, the Court is inclined to find that Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to the requested order compelling re-examination of the subject materials. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the direct relevance of such materials, such that the slight possibility that further examination will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is outweighed by the privacy interests of non-parties and the added burden to be placed on the defense.

Nevertheless, the Court will hear from counsel on these issues at the time of the hearing.

CV-23-007528 – ARROYO, GUADALUPE vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED.

Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of producing evidence demonstrating entitlement to judgment on the 1^st and 2^nd Causes of Action alleged against the City herein. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of disputed factual issues preventing judgment for Defendant.  Plaintiff has met her burden in that regard. (See UMFs 8, 13, 18, 20, 23 and Plaintiff’s Additional Facts.)

Plaintiff’s objection the photographs for lacking authentication discussed in the declaration of Mike Johnson, paragraph 6, is SUSTAINED. All other objections are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s objections to the declaration of Kay Greeley are OVERRULED.

CV-25-001105 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MAGANA, MARIA E – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Based on the moving papers and the Court’s 9-24-25 order deeming matters admitted, the Court finds that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute the stated causes of action against Defendant, and Defendant’s Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.  Judgment shall be entered on the underlying debt in the amount of $13,192.54.

In addition, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to the claimed costs in the amount of $430. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032.) 

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-001269 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs SAAVEDRA, ARTURO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Based on the moving papers and the Court’s 9-24-25 order deeming matters admitted, the Court finds that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute the stated causes of action against Defendant, and Defendant’s Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.  Judgment shall be entered on the underlying debt in the amount of $5,791.66.

In addition, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to the claimed costs in the amount of $285. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032.) 

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

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

CV-21-005695 – GHARRAEE, ZAHRA vs TRADER JOES COMPANY – Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial – GRANTED, conditionally.

The Court finds that the jury’s verdict as it relates to a finding of negligence against the Defendant is reasonably supported by the evidence adduced at trial.   (State Industries Inc. v. Redman (1964), 227 Cal.App.2d 650; In re Lekos' Estate (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 42; Devens v. Goldberg (1950), 96 Cal.App.2d 539).

However, the Court finds improper conduct by Plaintiff’s Counsel in his closing arguments where (1) Plaintiff’s Counsel asked jurors  what they would “trade” to go through Plaintiff’s injury and events following for 52,000 hours as an impermissible invocation of the Golden Rule that disqualifies jurors from acting in an impartial manner and encourages them to base their decisions on emotion rather than on the evidence. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 17 at page 102; Neumann v. Bishop, (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 451; Jackson v. Park, (2021) 66 Cal. App. 5th 1196); Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780; Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC, (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 586; Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co., (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 841); (2)  Counsel narrated an imaginary and embellished tale of Baby Sophia which, though based on Plaintiff’s testimony, took creative liberties had the effecting of evoking the juror’s emotions and sympathy in Plaintiff’s favor amounting to an emotionally prejudicial argument (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17 at page 100; Garcia v. ConMed Corp., (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 144; People v. Vance, (2010)188 Cal. App. 4th 1182); (3) Plaintiff’s Counsel personally attacked Defendant’s Counsel, accused them of suborning perjury and asked the jury to “ send a message” to Defendants (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17, page 43, and 100; Garcia v. ConMed Corp., (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 144).

The Court finds that it is reasonably probable that Defendant would have received a more favorable result in the absence of this misconduct. (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 780, 800). The Court therefore finds that said conduct was prejudicial, materially affected the substantial rights of Defendants and prevented Defendants from obtaining a fair trial herein, as to the issue of damages.  (Code of Civil Procedure § 657; Horn v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 60); Sabella v. Southern Pac. Co., (1969) 70 Cal.2d 311; Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal. App.5th 276, 296).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the damages awarded herein are excessive relative to the evidence adduced as to Plaintiff’s non-economic damages and that in the absence of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s aforesaid improper conduct Defendant would have received a more favorable result in this regard. (Code of Civil Procedure §657). the Court’s discretion, given that other witnesses had already testified as to “Circle C” work, and procedures and did not amount to error. Even if error, same was not prejudicial and did not materially impact Defendant’s rights to a fair trial. 

The Court, therefore, as an independent trier of fact, determines, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the amount of damages for Plaintiff’s future non-economic damages that is fair and reasonable herein is $6,000,000  ((Code of Civil Procedure § 662.5(a)(1) Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., (11984) 5 Cal. 3d 442, Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, rehearing denied, review denied, certiorari denied 142 S.Ct. 2870; Pearl v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 475).

Accordingly, the Court conditionally grants the Motion for a New Trial unless Plaintiff agrees to accept the reduced award of $6,000,000 in total non-economic damages ( $2,000,000 for total past non-economic loss and $4,000,000 for future non-economic loss) This would bring the total verdict in this case to $10,809,165. The motion is denied in all other respects.

Plaintiff shall demonstrate consent to this award by filing a Notice of Consent with the Court no later than the close of business on December 19, 2025. Should Plaintiff fail to consent to said award as ordered,  Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial shall be considered granted as to the issue of damages only. (Code of Civil Procedure § 662.5; Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., (11984) 5 Cal. 3d 442, Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, rehearing denied, review denied, certiorari denied 142 S.Ct. 2870;  Pearl v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 475).

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 11-16 in the form of juror declarations are hereby sustained. (Civ. Proc. Code § 657; Evid. Code §§ 1150 and 803)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

CV-24-000486 – CAVALRY SPV I LLC vs BALDONADO, LAWRENCE – Defendant’s Motion to Void Default Judgment – GRANTED.

A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10)

The Court finds that the summons and complaint at issue were not served on Defendant Lawrence Baldonado Jr. as required by statute, and as is essential to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant.  (Ellard v. Conway, (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 540; Code Civ. Proc. Section 415.10). The court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service.(Ellard v. Conway, (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 540). Furthermore,  Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate facts that establish effective service. (Coulston v Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara App. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 38).

Furthermore, actual notice of the action alone is not a substitute for proper service of process, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction and does not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint.  ((American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383; Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, on subsequent appeal 153 Cal.App.4th 697).

Good cause existing therefore, Defendant’s application is hereby granted. The Default Judgment issued by the Court herein dated May 14, 2025, is hereby vacated and set aside. Service of said summons and complaint on Defendant is necessarily also quashed.

The Court sets an OSC hearing in this matter for March 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-21-005360 – RAMOS, ALDO BECERRA vs SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Representative Action Settlement – GRANTED.

The Court finds that good cause exists for the Court to find the settlement agreement between the parties’ reasonable fair and adequate and accomplishes the Private Attorney General Act’s objectives.  (Lab. Code, § 2699 (e)(2) and (l)).

Phoenix Settlement Administrators are approved and appointed Class Administrators herein.

The following payments are approved from the Gross Settlement Amount of $800,000.00:

• $266,666.67 to Class Counsel, as attorney fees and $21,521.50. as Class Counsel’s Litigation Costs
• $30,000.00 as Administrator Expenses
• $349,733.62 or seventy-five percent (75%), of the total PAGA penalty amount of $466,311.50 to the LWDA
• $116,577, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the total PAGA penalty amount of $466,311.50 to the Aggrieved Employees.

CV-24-009962 – THE AGRI GROUP INC vs LEAVITT, BURNS D – Defendant’s Motion for Equitable Relief to Set Aside Default and Accept Answer - DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant’s motion is timely filed, and good cause appears to exist to grant the requested relief. (Code of Civil Procedure § 473 (b)). However, the motion fails to demonstrate proof of service on Plaintiff. ( Code of Civil Procedure §1005).

Therefore, Defendant’s motion is hereby denied without prejudice.

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 in Department 19***