Civil Tentative Rulings

September 3, 2026

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

CV-25-003485 - ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA – Defendant’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error on Order after Hearing – GRANTED, and unopposed.

CV-25-008039 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs KATICICH RANCH INC – Plaintiff’s to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 - GRANTED in part, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the motion is granted, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for the total amount of $277,971.62, which represents the principal amount of $271,184.46 plus interest of 6,787.16.

The motion references costs and attorney’s fees, but the parties’ agreement contains no provision for recovery of the same herein.

Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order and judgment consistent with the Court’s ruling herein.

CV-25-009800 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VELAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

The late-filed opposition appears to simply challenge attorneys fees and costs, and appears to challenge the amount of them. This matter is not ripe for decision on that, as a costs memorandum and declaration for attorney fees has not been provided.

Plaintiff has adequately shown facts which entitle summary judgment, and Defendant does not contest that she owes the amount on the card.

CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant’s Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to September 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21, along with the Case Management Conference.

This Court is taking the related cases under Rule 3.300, and a minute order reassigning cases CV-26-5535 and CV-26-4037 to this Department, vacating all dates on those, and resetting them for Case Management Conference in this Department at the same time is forthcoming.

The Court needs additional time to review the agreements.

CV-26-002823 - COLE, KAYLA RENEE vs UHAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS INC – Defendant U-Haul Co. of California’s Motion Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED.

A petition to compel arbitration requires the moving party to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the controversy falls within the agreement's scope. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Here, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the existence or execution of the arbitration agreement. The principal issue is scope.

The arbitration clause is notably broad. It applies to “any dispute, complaint, controversy, or cause of action arising out of or relating to your relationship with U-Haul or any prior, current or future Transaction with U-Haul.” The agreement further provides that “[a]ll claims, including assigned claims, brought under any legal theory, whether at law or in equity, are covered by this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, all statutory and tort claims, that may be asserted.” The agreement defines “Transaction” to mean, among other things, “the commencement, completion, or fulfillment of: A) a request or reservation to rent, use or purchase Equipment or to receive services; B) the use or review of the content of any U-Haul website; or C) any entry onto any U-Haul or U-Haul agent's property.” (Trudell Decl., Exh. A, U-Haul Arbitration Agreement, § 2(a), (e).)

Here, it appears that that Plaintiff alleges that she entered the U-Haul property and fell on the property. Plaintiff suggests this is independent of the arbitration agreement, but the arbitration agreement itself appears to cover it. That such a claim might be made even without a rental contract is of no moment.

Plaintiff cites Izzi v. Mesquite Country Club (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1309 for the proposition that the roots of the dispute must be related to the contract. To the extent this is accurate, the roots of the dispute – over the maintenance of the UHaul property – are related to contract.

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

CV-24-001197 - BELL, WILLIAM vs BENHAM, CHRISTOPHER – Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Restore Case Civil Calendar – GRANTED.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED.

On August 4, 2026, Plaintiff submitted the instant motion. The motion is based on Plaintiff’s declaration and exhibits filed on July 21, 2026. There is no opposition or reply on file.

The following is a brief summary of the proceedings. On March 19, 2025, the Court entered judgment by default for Plaintiff against the Defendant. On January 30, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment. On February 24, 2026, Defendant filed a declaration regarding bankruptcy filing and automatic stay.

In the instant motion, Plaintiff further avers that Defendant’s bankruptcy case has now been dismissed and thus, seeks to lift the stay. Plaintiff attached a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing Defendant’s Chapter 7 proceeding, dated June 17, 2026.

PR-25-001101 - In the Matter of EOFF, MATTHEW – a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Two, Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; c) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses and Production to Requests for Production, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a–c)

The Court notes that there are no oppositions to the motions on file, but an attorney for Respondent just substituted into the case on August 24, 2026. In order to give Respondent’s counsel an opportunity to get up to speed on these matters and to see if the motions can be resolved informally, these motions are CONTINUED to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The Court orders Respondent’s counsel and the Petitioner to meet and confer in person or by videoconference no later than September 11, 2026, and to file a joint status report by no later than September 16, 2026, stating what issues still need to be resolved.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***

The following is the tentative rulings for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***