Civil Tentative Rulings

April 24, 2026

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

CV-26-000402 - VALLE, XENIA C vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA - Defendant’s Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is likely to request further briefing.

1. The case of Hageman et al. v. Hyundai Motor America Inc. (2026 WL 821890) was decided on March 25, 2026. How does this unpublished 9^th Circuit case affect the analysis? (The motion was filed before this case was decided.)
2. Defendant, in its reply, suggests that Plaintiff has misread the Supreme Court’s ruling in  Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025) 17 Cal.5^th 1122. But a more careful reading of Plaintiff’s argument is that Plaintiff did not consider the California Supreme Court’s ruling, instead relying on the appellate court’s ruling (and providing only a Westlaw cite to this 2023 case.) How should the Court treat this?

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-24-009609 - MOZQUEDA, JORGE ANTONIO vs SUBARU OF AMERICA INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses - GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $10,383.03.

The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5^th 462.)

Attorney’s Fees

          Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court’s experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs’ counsel herein should be reduced as follows:

                                                                      2.1 hours claimed by Ms. Carreno for non-compensable clerical tasks and/or time that appears duplicative of that billed by counsel for the same tasks

                                                                      0.7 hours claimed by Ms. Caro for non-compensable clerical tasks

                                                                      0.3 hours claimed by Ms. Castellenos, which has not been sufficiently justified by the moving papers

          Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community.  (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the  community where the action is pending. (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.)  Lastly, the law provides that the trial judge is “the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49.) As a result, the Court finds that the requested rates are not reflective of the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County and should be reduced.

Therefore, the hourly rate for Ms. Oliva is approved in the reduced amount of $425.  The hourly rate for Ms. Kim is approved in the reduced amount of $350.  The hourly rate for the paralegals, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Carreno, and Ms. Caro, is approved in the reduced amount of $200.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the unchallenged memorandum of costs filed on 12-12-25, in the amount of $723.03.

Summary of Award –

 

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
Oliva	3.2	425	$      1,360.00
Kim	22.0	350	7,700.00
Aguilar	0.5	200	100.00
Carreno	2.3	200	460.00
Caro	0.2	200	40.00
		Total Fees	9,660.00
		Costs	723.03
		AWARD	$10,383.03

CV-24-010408 - CARDOSO, ADAM vs DAMBACHER, STEPHANIE - a) Defendant Steven E. Wilber's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Propounded to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Admitted - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party; b) Defendant Stephanie Dambacher's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Propounded to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Admitted - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

CV-25-004722 - WILSON, SALLY vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint [C.C.P. 426.50] - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has established entitlement to the requested relief and that an order granting leave to submit the proposed Cross-Complaint is in the interest of justice. Defendant shall submit the Cross-Complaint for filing within 10 days. 

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

CV-23-001643 - EDVALSON, ERIC, III VS CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant City of Modesto's Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Its Statute of Limitations Defense - GRANTED.

Good cause existing Defendant’s motion is hereby granted.( Civ. Proc. Code §§ 548 and 1048 (b); People v. Cline,  (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1327; National Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418).

The court orders the trial on Defendant’s Statute of Limitations defense to be bifurcated from the trial on liability and damages issues. Trial will begin on February 23, 2027, at 9:30 am in Department 24 of this Court on said Statute of Limitations defense immediately after which the substantive trial on liability and damages will proceed.

Only one jury will be empaneled for all phases of the trial.

CV-24-001980 - GALAN, RIGOBERTO QUINTANA vs. GUTIERREZ, VELIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Fees and Additional Costs - GRANTED.

Pursuant to the Default Judgment issued by the court in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs herein.  (Civ. Code § 1780 (e); Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 140; Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, C.A.92017, 845 F.3d 916.

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s unrebutted declaration and supporting time entries are enough to justify the claimed fees. (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., (2006)144 Cal. App. 4th 140; Steiny & Co. v. California Elec. Supply Co., (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 285).

The court finds the claimed attorney fees of $20,719 and expert costs of $410 totaling $21,129 to be reasonable in amount and to have been reasonably incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded his attorney fees and costs of $21,129 herein.

CV-25-007216 - NEWTON, MARISSA vs DAVILA, IVAN - a) Defendant Exp Realty of California, Inc and Barbara Maybee's Motion to Strike Improper and Irrelevant Material from Plaintiff's Complaint - MOOT; b) Defendant Exp Realty of California, Inc. and Barbara Maybee's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. 

a) To the extent that Defendant’s companion demurrer has been sustained, this Motion to Strike is rendered moot.

b) Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state her alleged First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Causes of action in their Complaint.

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***