Civil Tentative Rulings

April 8, 2026

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

CV-24-006578 – SHAFFER, DEE vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs a short amount of time to complete its review, but requires the parties’ assistance on a jurisdictional issue. The Court reads the parties intent as specifically waiving the jurisdictional bar in State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^th 1127.

The Court has the following questions:

1. Do the parties expressly waive the jurisdictional issue?
2. If so, is the Court able to accept that waiver? (The Court tentatively believes that the answer is yes.)
3. If not, does the procedural history indicate an implied waiver has already been entered?

CV-25-012120 – STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs BRAY, RADUS L – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession – GRANTED.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a 31,523 square foot fee acquisition and a 25,742 square foot easement for ingress, egress and utilities from a portion of the subject property located at 4130 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, and bearing Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel Number 007-022-006 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $122,000.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.). Defendant anticipates requesting a greater sum or asking for an increase in the amount of the deposit, but the matter is not currenty before the Court.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within  (30) days of service of this Order.

Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

CV-25-012131 – STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs WOLF, DWIGHT A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a 146,158 sq. square foot fee acquisition from a portion of the subject property located at 4290 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, and bearing Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel Number 007-022-016 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $29,600.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within  (30) days of service of this Order.

Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

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-24-008809 – TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production from Clearcapital.com, Inc., and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff’s Requests Special Interrogatories from Clearcapital.com, Inc., and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; c) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; d) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; e) Defendant Clearcapital’s Motion to Phase Discovery to Address Plaintiff’s Standing and Individual Claims First –  HEARING REQUIRED; f) Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC’s Motion to Sequence Discovery – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-f) The Court is inclined to appoint a discovery referee at this juncture, considering the complex and time-consuming nature of the disputes herein, as well as the substantial likelihood of future discovery disputes between the parties as the case progresses toward trial. Specifically, the Court notes the parties’ apparent inability to informally resolve their differences on various significant issues, as demonstrated by the multiple motions now pending herein. Therefore, the Court believes the appointment of a referee to handle all pending and future discovery motions and disputes related to discovery is warranted. (Code Civ. Proc § 639(a)(5).)

Counsel shall appear at the time of the hearing to discuss this issue.

CV-25-012153 – STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs GARCIA LES PARTNERS LP – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a  65,128 sq. ft. fee acquisition from a portion of the subject property located at7713 Maze Boulevard, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California,  County Assessor’s Parcel Number 081-031-013 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $92,200.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within  (30) days of service of this Order.

Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

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

CV-24-001194 – BELL, WILLIAM vs BENHAM, CHRISTOPHER – Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Primetime Event Medical LLC and Jesse Medlock as Alter Ego Judgment Debtors: to Pierce the LLC Veil – DENIED.

Assuming the Court has jurisdiction to determine this matter in light of Defendant’s pending bankruptcy petition, the Court notes that amendment of a judgment to add “alter ego” debtors is improper in the case of a default judgment, since there is no evidence from which to conclude that such “alter egos” controlled the underlying litigation. (Motores de Mexicali, S.A. v. Sup.Ct. (Resnick) (1958) 51 Cal.2d 172, 175-176; Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pac. Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 703-704, 708-709; NEC Electronics, Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 779.)

CV-25-004954 – RED TARGET LLC vs MONKHOUSE, SUSAN L – Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – OVERRULED.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of pleadings and addresses issues of law. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994).  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311). A demurrer does not address the truthfulness of allegations in a complaint. Therefore, Defendant’s status as decedent’s sister or otherwise is irrelevant for purposes of this demurrer.

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged claims against Defendant in her representative capacity as the personal representative and executor of decedent’s estate in the First Amended Complaint. (Civ. Proc. Code § 377.40; Lewis v. O'Brien, (1967) 248 Cal. App. 2d 628).

The period of one year from the date of decedent's death during which claims that survive his death must be brought may be tolled for a limited period of time by the timely filing of a creditor's claim or a petition to file a late claim, among other proceedings. (Bradley v. Breen (1999), 73 Cal.App.4th 798). However, a claim rejected in whole or in part is barred as to the part rejected unless the creditor commences an action on the claim, or the matter is referred to a referee or to arbitration. If the claim is due at the time the notice of rejection is given, 90 days after the notice is given is the applicable timeframe. (Prob. Code § 9353).

By filing a timely claim in probate and thereafter filing a timely action against estate on its claim, Plaintiff has satisfied all relevant statutes of limitation. (Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 530).  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint relates back to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was timely filed. (Burgos v. Tamulonis (1994) 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 728, 28 Cal.App.4th 757, review denied).

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is hereby overruled.

Defendant shall file her Answer within ten (10) days of service of the Court’s order. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(j)).

CV-25-006549 – LOREDO, ELIZABETH vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate with Case CV-25-007169 – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that the two cases sought to be consolidated demonstrate related issues, and or common issues of law or fact. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Tr., (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976; General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88). The Court also finds that consolidating said cases would not result in undue prejudice or deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights and would not confuse the jury.  (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Tr., (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976).

Therefore, the Court finds that considerations of convenience, expedition, and judicial economy favor the consolidation of the requested cases.   (Pilliod v. Monsanto Company (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, rehearing denied, review denied, certiorari denied 142 S.Ct. 2870, 213 L.Ed.2d 1092 ; General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88; National Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418).

Plaintiff’s application is therefore granted.

Accordingly, Case Numbers CV-25-006549 Loredo v Stanislaus Food Products and CV-25-007169 Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v Forklift Operator are hereby consolidated for all purposes including trial, with CV-25-006549 designated the lead case. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1048 (a)).

All documents in the consolidated matter are ordered to be filed in this case, Case No. CV-25-006549 , indicating its caption and case number followed by Case No. CV-CV-25-006549

This consolidation order is to be filed in Case No. CV-25-007169, and no further papers or documents or copies need to be filed in that action. 

All pretrial deadlines will follow the dates in the consolidated matter. 

Plaintiffs in the above actions are hereby permitted to file a consolidated complaint within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order consolidating the cases. Defendant’s responsive deadline will correspond with the filing of the consolidated complaint

CV-25-007909 – VAZQUEZ, YASMINE vs MALONEY, KEITH WAYNE – Plaintiff’s Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code 945.4 - DENIED, without prejudice.

The prior denial of Petitioner’s request for relief from the requirements of Government Code § 945.4 in Case No. CV-25-004573 did not fully address the merits of the petition. (People v. Johnson, (2016)1 Cal. App. 5th 953).

Even assuming Petitioner to have demonstrated the required mistake, inadvertence surprise or excusable neglect, in this action, in the absence of evidence supporting Petitioner’s claims of timely filing of her petition for relief, no basis exists to grant the requested relief. (Gov't Code §§ 945.4, and 946.6; McCurdy v. County of Riverside (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1103 rehearing denied). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition is hereby denied, without prejudice.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-26-000241 – CORE PARK PLACE LLC vs RUIZ, SELENA – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.