December 19, 2025

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

CV-23-002213 – LEGGETT, JANAE vs KEMP, HIRAM – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.  It appears that there is insufficient notice of the motion, and the Court will be required to deny it.  Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a) requires 81 days’ notice of a motion for summary judgment (plus additional time depending on the method of service).  Defendant filed his motion on October 7, 2025, but there is no proof of service of the motion in the Court’s file.  (The Court notes a proof of service of the proposed order on the motion dated October 17, 2025, but the proof of service does not list any other documents.)  

Given the hearing date set for the motion and considering the likely methods of service (i.e. mail or email), by the Court’s calculations, Defendant was likely required to serve the motion on Plaintiff sometime between September 25, 2025, and September 27, 2025. It appears from the file that Defendant likely didn’t serve the motion until approximately October 7, 2025, when it was filed.

CV-24-007707 – DORES, TONY vs FARIA, IRENE CHRISTINE – a) Defendant Irene Christine Faria’s Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to January 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21; b) Defendant Irene Christine Faria’s Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to January 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21;  c) Defendant Irene Christine Faria’s Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED to January 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

a-c) The primary contentions in the meet and confer letter appear to be that objections were unauthorized. It appears that claim has been abandoned.

The Court orders the parties to meaningfully meet and confer on the remaining issues in person or via telephone and submit a joint statement of remaining issues on or before January 13, 2026. The Court anticipates that the issues will be significantly narrowed.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-25-004427 – DHILLON, VIJAYPAL SINGH vs STATE BANK OF TEXAS – a) Defendant Thyne Berglund & Co.’s Demurrer to Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend; b) Defendant Thyne Berglund & Co.’s Motion and Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint Against Defendant Thyne Berglund & Co. – DENIED.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support any of the claims asserted against the moving defendant herein. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting his contention that the subject deed of trust was void, nullifying the resulting foreclosure proceedings. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to plead his fraud claim with the requisite degree of specificity required by the law. As all of Plaintiff’s claims rest on these central contentions, they must fail at this stage due to the lack of sufficient factual support in this regard.

Additionally, as to Plaintiff’s claims of particular statutory violations, the Court finds that the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations which demonstrate the applicability of the asserted statutory provisions in this context.

Lastly, the Court notes that it is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the ability to amend the pleading to include additional facts which will survive demurrer, and while Plaintiff requests leave to amend he has made no such showing herein. Nevertheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend in this instance to afford him the opportunity to assert viable claims.  Plaintiff shall submit his First Amended Complaint within 20 days.

b) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the claims at issue herein arise from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. (See, e.g. Garretson v. Post (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1508.)

CV-23-005771 – GALVAN, FRANCISCO ESCALANTE vs SCHROEDER, ARCELIA B – Defendants Arcelia B. Shroeder and Kemp Hable, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6 - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Upon review of the papers and evidence submitted, and in view of the lack of opposition, the Court finds sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the subject settlement was entered in good faith and within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(2) and Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. 

Therefore, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6, a dismissal with prejudice is entered in favor of Defendants Arcelia B. Schroeder and Kemp-Hable, Inc. as to any Complaints or Cross-Complaints presently on file, or deemed filed, against them.  All existing or future claims by any party, joint tortfeasor, or co-obligor against such defendants for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, equitable comparative contribution, partial or comparative indemnity, implied contractual indemnity, or for any other cause of action based upon such claims in this lawsuit, are forever barred.  

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

673751 – NATIONAL COLLEGIATE vs FLORES, CARRIE – Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment – DENIED, in part, GRANTED, in part.

The Court finds that there is no deadline for the service of a Notice of Renewal of Judgment on a debtor .  (Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 255, review denied; Am. Contractors Indem. Co. v. Hernandez, (2022) 73 Cal. App. 5th 845).

Additionally, there is no statutory requirement that the notice of renewal of judgment be served on the judgment debtor in order for the renewal to be effective; the only impact of a lack of valid service of the notice of renewal is that the judgment creditor cannot initiate enforcement proceedings until the debtor is served.( Am. Contractors Indem. Co. v. Hernandez, (2022) 73 Cal. App. 5th 845).

The Court also finds that Defendant was not served with the Notice of Renewal of Judgment issued herein on December 6, 2022.  Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot initiate enforcement proceedings until the Defendant is properly served. (Civ. Proc. Code § 683.160(b)). Consequently, any enforcement action taken pursuant to said Notice of Renewal including the issuance of a Writ of Execution on May 5, 2025, and any subsequent garnishment of Defendant’s wages and the levying of any bank account of Defendant’s are void and hereby vacated. Accordingly, any funds obtained from any garnishment or levy pursuant to the Notice of Renewal at issue shall accordingly be refunded to Defendant forthwith.

Additionally, failure to validly serve a judgment debtor with an application for renewal of judgment does not give the debtor the right to set aside the renewal of judgment. (Am. Contractors Indem. Co. v. Hernandez (2022) 73 Cal. App. 5th 845).

The Court further finds that no basis exists to equate service of a writ of summons and complaint to service of a Notice of Renewal herein, and that invalid service of a Notice of Renewal does not serve to render the Renewal of Judgment obtained herein void. ( Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10 and 415.20) Furthermore, Defendant has not asserted any grounds that would support vacating said Renewal of Judgment. The Court also finds that Defendant has not discharged her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to vacate the renewal of judgment (Am. Contractors Indem. Co. v. Hernandez. Therefore, Defendant’s request to vacate the Renewal of Judgment herein is denied.

Given that Defendant did not have notice of said Renewal of Judgment within a timely period, and in any case within 60 days of actual notice of same, the Court considers Defendant’s present motion timely filed. (Civ. Proc. Code § 683.170 (b)).  

Assuming Defendant to have met the requirements for the issuance of a temporary restraining order while this motion is pending, given the Court’s ruling herein, the issuance of a temporary restraining order as requested by Defendant is rendered moot.

CV-25-001815 – GIULIANI CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION INC vs SALINAS, GUADALUPE – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 41 and Request for Sanctions – GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to the requested information. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010; 2030.300; Williams v. Superior Ct.,(2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531; Puerto v. Superior Ct., (2008)158 Cal. App. 4th 1242).

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s opposition to providing the requested information was without substantial justification. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.200 (d)). Accordingly, Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions of $1620 for his reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this motion. 

CV-25-006617 – EXPLOITED MILK PRODUCERS INC vs ROSS, KAREN – Christopher G. Renner’s Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED, unopposed.

Good cause existing, Christopher G. Renner’s application to appear herein as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is hereby granted. (Cal. Rules of Court 9.40 ).

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***