December 3, 2025

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

CV-25-008602 – KNUDSON, NICOLE vs PADILLA, ANTONIO – a) Defendants Infinity Insurance Company and Kemper Independence Insurance Company's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend for misjoinder. b) Defendants Infinity Insurance Company's and Kemper Independence Insurance Company's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint -MOOT.

a) SUSTAINED, without leave to amend for misjoinder

Plaintiff alleges injuries in a car crash, and sued the driver, the driver’s alleged employer, and the driver’s insurance company. This demurrer is by the insurance company.

Insurers’ demurrer raises several issues. First, it alleges that Evidence Code section 1155 “expressly prohibits joinder” of the insurer. The Court disbelieves this assertion, as the section prohibits use of insurance to prove that negligence or other wrongdoing.

The Court is also uncertain on the degree to which Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 (overturned on other grounds) may be relied upon. But it appears that Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Mazon (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 862 still controls, and that case does stand for the provision that a lawsuit against the insurer is misjoined with a lawsuit against the insured. While Industrial Indemnity relies on Royal Globe, its citation to the purposes of avoiding prejudicial use of liability insurance, avoiding discovery issues, and avoiding a premature determination of damages remains sound and consistent with more recent cases.

Plaintiff’s assertion that these cases are limited to other unfair settlement practices does not alter the fact that the gravamen of the complaint is that Insurers engaged in unfair settlement practices.

Insurers further assert that Insurance Code section 11580.2(b)(2) “unequivocally precludes a third party claimant from suing an insurer until a judgment has first been obtained against the insured.” The Court suggests that where such unequivocal language exists, it be provided. There is a difference between case law interpretation of a statute and the language of the statute.

The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of a potential separately filed lawsuit or whether any issues are ripe for such a lawsuit, but notes additional controlling case Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287.

b) MOOT as a result of the Court’s ruling on the Insurers’ demurrer.   

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

CV-20-001252 – ZAGARIS, KAY vs GROESBECK, BERNARD W – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint – DENIED.

By way of this motion, Kay Zagaris and Neal Groesbeck seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint for the stated purposes of naming “the appropriate defendants, as real parties in interest and/or representatives, following the death of Defendant BETTE JENSEN GROESBECK;” and (2) conforming the complaint “so as to match the pending Cross-Complaint filed by KAY ZAGARIS and NEAL GROESBECK in the now consolidated matter, Case No. CV-22-004755.” (11/6/25 Mot., at p. 2.)

Despite the Court having denied on September 16, 2025, a prior motion for leave to file an amended pleading because of procedural defects, the motion at bar still does not fully comply with Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. Specifically, the motion still does not “[s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located;” and “[s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) Nor is there a redlined copy of the proposed pleading attached, a customary practice that allows for substantial compliance with the aforementioned requirements when the changes to a pleading are numerous.

More importantly, the proposed pleading is problematic because (1) Bette Jensen Groesbeck was dismissed from this complaint without prejudice in May 2022; and (2) in any case, the time for amending a pleading to substitute a defendant in place of the deceased Bette Jensen Groesbeck has expired.

Ms. Groesbeck passed away on December 23, 2021. (See 11/18/25 Whitney Decl., Exh. 1.) On May 23, 2022, the Court entered Plaintiffs’ request for dismissal without prejudice as to Ms. Groesbeck. (See 11/18/25 Opp. RJN, at Exh. 4.) It is thus puzzling why Plaintiffs have filed this motion to name Ms. Groesbeck’s successors-in-interest and the successor trustee of the family trust as Defendants given the dismissal.

Even assuming arguendo that the dismissal did not exist, an action cannot be continued against a decedent’s successors-in-interest unless it is shown that there is statutory authority for doing so (see Code Civ. Proc., § 377.41; Law Rev. Com. Comments thereto), and Plaintiffs have not made that showing here. The only other option is to open probate and file a creditor’s claim before seeking to maintain the suit against the decedent’s personal representative (see id.), and it does not appear that Plaintiffs ever did that, either. Furthermore, the time for filing a creditor’s claim against the decedent’s estate or trust has expired. (See Prob. Code, §§ 9002(a); 9100; 19100.)

It is noted that Ms. Groesbeck was residing in Idaho at the time of her death. (See 11/18/25 Whitney Decl., Exh. 1.)

Responding Parties contend that California law still applies (see 11/18/25 Opp., at p. 5), and it appears to the Court that their position on this issue is correct. However, even if Idaho law applied, it seems that the time for complying with that state’s procedural prerequisites has also expired. (See 11/18/25 Opp. RJN, at Exhs. 7-11.)

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Responding Parties’ Request for Judicial Notice filed on November 18, 2025, is GRANTED.

CV-23-001284 – BOLTON, CHRISTOPHER vs US AUTO LEASING INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt of Lake Elsinore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, LLC – DENIED.

By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order an order to show cause “regarding Lake Elsinore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, LLC’s contempt.” (10/27/25 Mot., at p. 1.)

According to Plaintiff, Lake Elsinore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, LLC, is a third party that inspected the vehicle at issue. Plaintiff personally served Lake Elsinore with a deposition subpoena. The company failed to appear at the deposition. On August 29, 2025, the Court signed an order compelling the entity’s deposition by September 19, 2025. Again, Lake Elsinore failed to respond.

The Court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the fact that the Secretary of State’s website shows “Lake Elsinore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, LLC” as a terminated entity that was dissolved by the vote of all members. The certificate of cancellation was filed on May 27, 2014 (shortly after its formation on April 29, 2014). Thus, the order compelling its deposition appears void; the entity no longer exists in the eyes of the law. For this reason, the motion for the issuance of an order to show cause is DENIED.

PR-24-000390 – IN THE MATTER OF JOSE AND AMALIA SANTIAGO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST – Petitioner Jose Santiago, III's Motion for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt of a Court Order to Submit Gal Order to the Court for Representation of Minor Beneficiaries Miguel Dominguez and Gema Dominguez and Request for Sanctions - DENIED.

By way of this motion, Petitioner Jose Santiago III seeks the issuance of an order to show cause regarding contempt against Respondent Erika Santiago Dominguez and her attorney of record, William Broderick-Villa of Broderick Legal Group, for their alleged failure to submit a formal order reflecting the March 28, 2025 minute order appointing William Broderick-Villa as the guardian ad litem for the Respondent’s minor children in this case.

For the reason stated in the opposition, the motion is DENIED. Specifically, the Court already deemed this matter a non-issue on October 7, 2025, the first day of trial. Accordingly, this motion—filed on October 9, 2025, two days after the Court’s decision on the issue—should not have been submitted. Furthermore, for a party to be found guilty of contempt under Code of Civil Procedure § 1209(a)(5), there must be willful disobedience to a written order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1003 [definition of an order].) “Thus, it has been consistently stated that an order is ineffective unless it is either in writing filed with the clerk or entered in the minutes [citations].” (Ketscher v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 601, 604.) Here, there is no writing showing that Respondent Erika Santiago Dominguez or her attorney was expressly ordered to submit a formal order regarding Mr. Broderick-Villa’s appointment as the children’s guardian ad litem.

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

CV-22-001956 – SUASIN, JORGE vs GOLDEN AGE – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The effectiveness of the order will be delayed until counsel submits proof of electronic service of the signed order on the clients.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)

CV-24-005270 – DAVIS, MICKEY ERNEST vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Defendant C.W. Brower, INC’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Mickey Ernest Davis; Request for Sanctions - DENIED.

The deposition notice for the date in question was served with insufficient notice to Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.270(a).)

CV-23-005395 – PINEDA, AMITAI vs GOLD LEAF FARMING LLC -a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions- HEARING REQUIRED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-b) HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel shall appear to advise the Court of the status of the dispute.

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

CV-23-002008 – HUCKABEY, GORDON vs PACIFIC SOUTHWEST CONTAINER LLC – Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court the Court finds as follows:

The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the

final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

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 Information to Administrator.
1-19-26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-13-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
3-26-26	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-24-004377 – PIZANA, LEILANI vs DOE, JANE – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s inability to establish contact with his client, this motion is denied, without prejudice.

The Case Management Conference set for February 23, 2026, is hereby vacated and reset for June 8, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.

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***