Civil Tentative Rulings

September 22, 2026

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

CV-24-003496 – DISCOVER BANK vs ZEPEDA, ELENA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Dismiss Action Without Prejudice – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 473(d) and 581, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion. The Court will sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with the instant motion.

On August 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion to set aside judgment and to dismiss the case without prejudice. There is no opposition in the Court file.

CV-25-005773 – ART BUILDINGS LLC vs ROMSPEN CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP – Defendants Ric (Atherstone) LLC and Romspen California Mortgage Limited Partnership’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees – GRANTED in the reduced amount of $142,575.00.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion in the reduced amount of $142,575.00. Moving party to serve and submit a revised proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 because (1) the contract-at-issue allows Defendant to recover attorneys’ fees, (2) the causes of action are on the contract, and (3) Defendant is the prevailing party.

“[T]he reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community.” (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1157.) The hourly rates that Defendant seeks in the instant motion exceed the local rates. Mr. Hartford’s rate is modified to $500 per hour, Mr. Poppen’s to $450 per hour, Mr. Root’s to 450 per hour, Ms. Zhu’s to $250 per hour, and Paralegal Randerson’s to $200 per hour.

As to the number of hours expended, Plaintiff failed to identify any specific objectional line items (aside from the writ fees) that should be excluded.

Attorneys’ fees resulting from a motion to expunge lis pendens and corresponding writ petitions are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure 405.38. (J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1, 43 [directing Superior Court to determine “reasonable attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 resulting from the motion and this subsequent writ petition.”)

Defendants did not provide a breakdown of the hours spent per biller on the instant motion. Thus, the Court will not award the requested $15,000.00 for time billed on the instant motion.

The Court finds a total amount of $142,575.00 in attorneys’ fees to be reasonable for the instant case.

David Harford	$18,125.00
Joseph Poppen	$6,637.50
David J. Root	$77,250.00
Wenqing Zhu	$31,562.50
Terry Randerson	$9,000.00
TOTAL:	$142,575.00

CV-26-003003 – BARNES, KRISTY vs MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT LLC – Defendant MSL Community Management LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Civil Action - GRANTED.

The motion to compel arbitration and stay the instant action is GRANTED. The Court will modify and sign the proposed order.

The parties signed a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that falls within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2. Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401-402, because Plaintiffs have alleged conduct that constitutes sexual harassment under California law. The arbitration agreement itself states that it does not apply to sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes as defined by the EFAA.

Under California law regarding employers, “ ‘harassment’ because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.” (Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(4)(C).)

The California Supreme Court has explained “that ‘harassment consists of a type of conduct not necessary for performance of a supervisory job. Instead, harassment consists of conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives. Harassment is not conduct of a type necessary for management of the employer’s business or performance of the supervisory employee’s job. [Citations.]” (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 645–646.)

Here, the conduct alleged in the First Amended Complaint amounts to conduct necessary to performance of a supervisor’s job, which constitutes discrimination rather than harassment. Plaintiffs alleged that their work performance and attendance was more closely scrutinized after disclosing their pregnancies, which could amount to discrimination. As Defendant accurately observes, the harassment does not constitute a severe and pervasive pattern.

Plaintiffs’ allegations are distinguishable from the cases Plaintiffs cite. Here, there are no allegations of sexual favoritism nor repeated comments, mockery, or demeaning statements that created a hostile work environment. (E.g., Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 75, 86.) Nor are there allegations of sexist, unsupported criticisms or attempts to freeze Plaintiffs out of the ability to perform their work. (E.g., Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc., NASDAQ (9th Cir., Aug. 19, 2026, No. 25-1532) 2026 WL 2420555, at *7.)

All future dates are vacated and the matter is set for Case Status Review on April 9, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

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

CV-25-003485 – ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Improper Matter from First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The demurrer is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.” The motion to strike is similarly procedurally defective. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5.)

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the exchange of written communications sent via email. (Declaration of Megan Johnson, ¶¶ 3–5.)

Communications sent by email are insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the matter to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a) by no later than six court days before the hearing. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than five court days before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

CV-26-001469 – AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT – Defendants CCTMO LLC and T-Mobile West Tower LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Aarza Group Inc. - CONTINUED to October 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The demurrer is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.”

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the delivery of a written communication sent via email on July 14, 2026, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Sandra Vucinic, ¶¶ 4–5.)

A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the demurrer to October 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a) by no later than six court days before the hearing. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than five court days before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

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

CV-25-004183 – TATUM, SUZANNE – vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Defendant City of Turlock’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 28, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court requires more time to review this matter.

CV-25-003108 – DISCOVER BANK vs JIMENEZ, MARIBEL – Plaintiff’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement [C.C.P. 664.6] – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and stipulation entered between the parties in May 2025, by which they agreed to the Court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement herein. Therefore, the motion is granted, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for the total amount of $6,058.97, which represents the principal amount of $9,408.75, less $3,760 in payments credited to the account, plus costs of $410.22.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) The Court will sign the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-011861 – YARBROUGH, VANCE vs COELHO, KELLEY – Plaintiff Vance Yarbrough’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Specified Discovery Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (G) – GRANTED, in part.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to conduct limited discovery relative to specific facts necessary to meet his burden with regard to Defendant’s motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g).) Therefore, the Court authorizes the following discovery:

1. Plaintiff may obtain portions of the TUSD investigation file, limited to those materials bearing on communications with and/or notice to the defendant regarding the investigation and findings, the documents provided to her, and the timing thereof. All student-identifying references and information shall be redacted from the subject production.

2. Plaintiff may obtain portions of the TPD incident report and supplements for Case No. TP25005560, limited to those materials bearing on communications with and/or notice to the defendant regarding the investigation and findings, the documents provided to her, and the timing thereof. All student-identifying references and information shall be redacted from the subject production.

CV-25-012389 – JONES, CHAD vs NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION – Plaintiff’s Application for Jason Macfetters to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Plaintiff – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel.

CV-26-000929 – GONZALEZ, ANGELICA vs BEST FOR LESS AUTO SALES LLC – Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Arbitration, for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, for an Order Confirming Defendant Best for Less Auto Sales, LLC is in Material Breach of the Arbitration Clause, an Order that Defendant Best for Less Auto Sales, LLC Owes Plaintiff Attorney Fees and Costs Related to Arbitration, and Request for Stay - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated the right to compel arbitration against Defendant Best for Less Auto Sales, LLC. (Code Civ. Proc. sect. 1281.2.) The matter shall proceed to arbitration before AAA or, in the event AAA is unable or unwilling to accept the matter, before JAMS. Best for Less Auto Sales, LLC shall bear the reasonable costs and fees related to the arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. sect. 1281.97(b)(2), 1281.99(a).) 

Further proceedings in the instant matter are stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. sect. 1281.4.)

Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

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

CV-24-000739 – OWENS, SARAH vs OAKDALE VETERINARY GROUP INC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

In view of the contents of the declaration of Jarrod Salinas, Case Manager of Phoenix Settlement Administrators, the appointed settlement administrators in this matter, indicating that the Settlement Fund will not be fully funded till January 11, 2027, after which disbursements will be made therefrom, and accounting for the 180 day check cashing deadline, this matter is continued to Thursday, April 30, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than April 24, 2027, the Phoenix Settlement Administrators shall submit a compliance report regarding said disbursement including the number and value of uncashed checks.

CV-24-007462 – HERRERA, YOSSILYN O vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Document Production to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – WITHDRAWN, by the moving party.

CV-24-009921 – BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs PULLUM, ALTON – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration & Request for Stay & Dismissal - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s motion notwithstanding the absence of a supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113; Phillips v. Barron (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 316; Avalos v. Welty (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 545.

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute as contained in the parties’ Cardmember Agreement.  Civ. Proc. Code § 1281 et seq; In re Uber Technologies Wage and Hour Cases, (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1297; Montemayor v. Ford Motor Co. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958; 9 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq; Cisneros Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corporation (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 572.

The Court further finds that Defendant has not engaged in any conduct herein inconsistent with the right to arbitrate or demonstrating a waiver of such right. Apart from filing his Answer, Defendant has only invoked the litigation machinery by the filing of his two Motions to Compel Arbitration herein. Davis v. Shiekh Shoes, LLC, (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 956.

This conduct supports a conclusion that the parties were not well into preparation of the lawsuit before Defendant filed the present motion. Quach v. California Com. Club, Inc., (2022) 78 Cal. App. 5th 470, 293.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the instant dispute is hereby granted.   U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.; Civ. Proc. Code § 1280 et seq).

The action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration. 9 U.S.C.A. § 3 and Civ Proc. Code § 1281.4; Tas-T-Nut Co. v. Continental Nut Co., (1954) 125 Cal. App. 2d 351.

Defendant shall take steps to initiate arbitration within a reasonable time according to the terms of the Arbitration agreement at issue and pursuant to the terms of the American Arbitration Association, the arbitration provider under the arbitration agreement. 

Defendant shall submit a proposed order that conforms with the Court’s ruling by September 30, 2026.

The Court sets a Case Management Conference for Monday, September 20, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. 

The following are the tentative rulings 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***