Civil Tentative Rulings

October 07, 2026

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

CV-24-009799 - GUTZLER , REBECCA vs DOE, JOHN - Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court will consider the ex parte application at 8:15 a.m

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-21-005754 -  GAVERT, JAMES vs CF MODESTO LLC - Defendant, The Estate of Michael Brodie's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - DENIED.

The motion to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 rests entirely on the contention that the Fourth Cause of Action fails to state a claim for elder abuse; that contention is properly raised by demurrer, not by a motion to strike the remedy. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528–529; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

Further, the Second Amended Complaint pleads substantial additional facts concerning Dr. Brodie’s alleged caretaking and custodial relationship. (SAC ¶¶ 66–77, 90–92.) Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 does not apply to punitive damages claims based on elder abuse. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771.) The October 23, 2025 stipulation and order contain no waiver of any claim or remedy, and the policy on which the Estate relies is not a proper subject of a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437, subd. (a).)

The Estate’s remaining grounds could have been raised against the First Amended Complaint and were not. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (b).) The Court does not consider the request, first made in reply, to strike the Fourth Cause of Action.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 23***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department 24:

CV-24-001098 - NOVOA, STEVEN vs CONRAD WOOD PRESERVING CO - Plaintiff Steven Novoa's Motion or Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Conrad Wood Preserving Co. - GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes terminating sanctions where a party engages in misuse of the discovery process. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Court considers the nature and willfulness of the misconduct, the prejudice to the party seeking discovery, the history of formal and informal efforts to obtain compliance, and whether lesser sanctions have been effective. Higginson v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th, review denied (Apr. 29, 2026); Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246; Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.

Defendant Conrad Wood Preserving Co. failed to comply with the Court’s May 2025 orders requiring further responses to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Employment, Set One. Defendant thereafter failed to comply timely with the Court’s October 2025 orders requiring responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production, Set Two, and verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The Court previously imposed monetary, issue, and evidence sanctions. Those lesser sanctions did not obtain full compliance. Although Defendant eventually produced responsive documents and served amended RFP responses on July 14, 2026, those responses stated that verifications would follow. Defendant’s opposition further represented that the remaining verified responses would be served on July 20, 2026 and that the previously ordered sanctions would be paid no later than July 24, 2026. Plaintiff’s unrebutted reply evidence establishes that Defendant did not serve the promised responses or verifications and did not pay the sanctions.

The Court finds Defendant’s continuing noncompliance willful. Counsel’s explanation that responses were initially omitted inadvertently from a service email does not explain Defendant’s failure to correct the omission after repeated notice, or its failure to carry out the specific corrective measures promised in its opposition.

The remaining discovery is material because it concerns Defendant’s asserted legitimate reason for Plaintiff’s termination, namely a lack of available work. The Court finds that Defendant’s repeated violations have prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to prepare his case and that lesser sanctions have proved ineffective.

Defendant’s answer is therefore STRICKEN, and Defendant’s default shall be entered. Plaintiff shall proceed by default prove-up in accordance with law.

Plaintiff’s request for additional monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant and its counsel are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions of $2,110.00 within 15 days of the date of service of this Order.

CV-25-006583 - JET INSURANCE COMPANY vs DUQUE BROTHERS INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Discharge and Dismissal of Surety Under License Bond [Cal. Code Civ. Proc.996.490(A)], for a Restraining Order [Cal. Code Civ. Proc 386(F)], and Costs [Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 386.6] - GRANTED in part, CONDITIONALLY.

Plaintiff issued Contractor’s License Bond No. JT014515 on behalf of The Garage Door Guy in the penal sum of $25,000. Plaintiff commenced this interpleader action after receiving multiple competing claims against the bond. Plaintiff alleges that it has no interest in the proceeds, except for recoverable interpleader costs and fees, and is unable to determine the validity or respective amounts of the competing claims.

Code of Civil Procedure section 386 permits a party against whom multiple claims are made that may expose it to multiple liability to bring an interpleader action requiring the competing claimants to litigate their respective rights. Interpleader may be maintained although the claims are unliquidated and the stakeholder disputes liability. Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b);  Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2014), 232 Cal.App.4th 477, review filed, review denied.  The purpose of interpleader is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and double vexation.  Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Peterson (2007), 156 Cal.App.4th 676, review denied; City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999), 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, rehearing denied, review denied.

Here, the remaining competing claims against the bond establish the propriety of interpleader. Defendant Niraj Gandhi, the only claimant opposing the motion, expressly states that he does not object to Plaintiff’s discharge. Instead, he disputes the amount of Leer Properties, LLC’s claim, the proposed allocation of the bond proceeds, and Plaintiff’s request that its costs be paid from the $7,500 fund.

The Court declines to determine those claimant-versus-claimant issues on the present motion. Niraj Gandhi asks the Court to cap Leer Properties, LLC’s claim at $1,000, find that the aggregate claims therefore do not exceed $7,500, and immediately award him $2,200. The amount and validity of the competing claims, however, are issues to be adjudicated among the claimants. Section 386 expressly contemplates that conflicting claimants will litigate their respective interests in the interpleaded property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subds. (b), (e).)

Accordingly, Niraj Gandhi’s request to cap Leer Properties, LLC’s claim at $1,000 and immediately distribute $2,200 to him is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to determination of the respective claims in subsequent proceedings.

Business and Professions Code section 7071.6, subdivision (b), provides that, excluding claims by the homeowner beneficiaries specified in section 7071.5, subdivision (a), the aggregate liability of the surety is limited to $7,500, and the proceeds exceeding $7,500 are reserved exclusively for those qualifying homeowner claims. The present papers identify the remaining active claims as claims subject to the $7,500 limitation, and Niraj Gandhi does not contend that his claim qualifies for the homeowner-reserved portion.

Plaintiff also seeks $1,054.12 in costs incurred in connection with the interpleader. Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6, subdivision (a), permits the Court, in ordering the stakeholder’s discharge, to award its costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute deposited with the Court. Sweeney v. McClaran (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824. Plaintiff seeks no attorney fees, and the declaration and supporting records submitted with the motion identify $1,054.12 in costs associated with this interpleader proceeding.

The request for costs is GRANTED in the amount of $1,054.12, payable from the deposited amount in dispute pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6. Niraj Gandhi’s alternative request that the costs instead be taken from the remaining $17,500 is denied. Section 7071.6, subdivision (b), reserves bond proceeds exceeding the $7,500 non-homeowner aggregate limit exclusively for qualifying homeowner claims.

The Court further finds a restraining order appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (f).(Surety Co. of the Pacific v. Piver (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 2. The parties are therefore restrained from instituting or further prosecuting another proceeding in any court in this state affecting their respective rights and obligations concerning Bond No. JT014515 until further order of this Court.

The Court notes, however, that Code of Civil Procedure section 996.490 provides that payment by a surety of “the amount of a bond” constitutes a full discharge of liability on the bond, while Bond No. JT014515 has a stated penal sum of $25,000. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks discharge after depositing only the $7,500 applicable to the remaining non-homeowner claims, the discharge is granted pursuant to the interpleader provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 386 as to the competing claims and bond proceeds placed at issue in this action, rather than on the ground that payment of $7,500 constitutes payment of the full $25,000 bond under section 996.490.

Upon Plaintiff’s deposit of the applicable $7,500 bond proceeds with the Clerk of the Court, Plaintiff Jet Insurance Company shall be discharged as stakeholder from further liability to the parties concerning the competing claims to those proceeds and dismissed from this interpleader action. The Court awards Plaintiff $1,054.12 in costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 from the deposited fund. The balance shall remain subject to further order of the Court pending adjudication or resolution of the competing claims.

All issues concerning the validity, amount, priority, and allocation of the claims of Leer Properties, LLC, Maddox Properties, L.P., and Niraj Gandhi, including Niraj Gandhi’s asserted entitlement to recover his filing costs, are reserved for further proceedings

Plaintiff shall submit a revised proposed order consistent with this ruling no later than October 14, 2026.  The revised order shall identify the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, rather than the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and any restraint under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (f), shall track the statutory limitation to proceedings “in any court in this state.”

CV-25-010637 - RAMIREZ , DAVID L vs PACKNIT , DARRIN - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Darrin Packnit to Further Respond to Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) and for Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant JDP Investment/Holding, a California Corporation to Further Respond to Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) and for Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED.

a-b) The parties should be prepared to provide the Court an update on the status of the discovery requests at issue.

CV-25-012316 - SYNCHRONY BANK vs AVILA, MYRIAM - Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED, unopposed.

The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Civ. Proc. Code § 438(c)(1)(A); Apple Annie, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 919; Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.5th 734, 758-759].

The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of written contract. Defendant Myriam Avila expressly admitted all allegations of the complaint and identified no allegation she disputes. Defendant’s asserted financial hardship and offer to pay a reduced amount do not constitute a defense to the claim.

Based on the pleadings filed herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint, with attached Exhibit, Defendant’s Answer, the Moving Papers with supporting declaration, and Defendant’s failure to oppose this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. (Civil Procedure Code § 438 (c)(1)(A)])

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the principal amount of $3,298.85, the amount requested in the motion, together with allowable costs of $296.00. Plaintiff shall identify and provide the statutory basis for the $60 item designated as “other” in its memorandum of costs before that item is included in the judgment.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order no later than October, 14, 2026, that conforms to the Court’s ruling.

The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***