November 19, 2025

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

CV-25-006685 – DURAN, MANUEL PEREZ vs. E & J GALLO WINERY – Defendant E & J Gallo Winery’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay All Proceedings – GRANTED and unopposed.

The Court vacates all dates and sets a Case Status Review for August 14, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.

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

CV-25-007865 – HERRERA, J LUIS vs. CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Defendant Conam Management Corporation’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Class Claims, or in the Alternative Stay Claims – CONTINUED to December 2, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to December 2, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

PR-24-001246 – ESTATE OF SOUZA, WILHELMINA ANN – Objector’s Brian Souza and Alan Souza’s Motion for Sanctions Against Petitioner Darrell Souza and his Attorney’s – DENIED.

By way of this motion, Objectors Brian and Alan Souza seek to sanction Petitioner under either Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5 or Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.

For the procedural reasons stated in the opposition, the motion is DENIED. Specifically, a sanctions motion under either of these statutes cannot be combined with any other motion. (See Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) §§ 9:1190-9:1191.)

Furthermore, during the safe-harbor period, Petitioner filed an amended petition. On reply, Objectors contend that the amended pleading does not constitute a withdrawal or correction of the pleading. While an amended pleading does not always moot the motion, in most cases, it does. (See Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 447, as modified on denial of reh'g (July 17, 2014) [noting that the statutory language of Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 appears to require a second safe-harbor period after an amended pleading is filed, but determining that a sanctions motion may be heard on the merits after the filing of an amended pleading in certain limited circumstances].) Here, the Court is not going to engage in a substantive analysis as to whether this case falls into that limited scenario given the other procedural defect noted above.

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

CV-21-000300 – THE DYER LAW FIRM vs. SAMSIN, KARLA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff Dyer Law Firm Cause of Action for Common Counts – DENIED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to adjudication of the Common Counts claim herein by establishing the elements of an open book account. The burden then shifts to Defendants to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of material factual disputes preventing adjudication in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendants have carried their burden in this regard. Specifically, Defendants have introduced evidence demonstrating the ambiguity of the parties’ agreement with regard to the circumstances under which Defendants were obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for litigation costs incurred. As a result, the determination of whether the result achieved in the underlying litigation represents a “recovery” from which costs were agreed to be paid presents a question of fact herein. (See, at a minimum, UMFs 11, 17, 30, 38, 40, and 41.)

Defendants’ Objection No. 1 is OVERRULED; Defendants’ Objection No. 2 is SUSTAINED on the grounds asserted.

CV-25-001093 – RAMIREZ, ALFREDO vs. SARABIA, MARISOL – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint as to Specially Appearing Defendant Marisol Sarabia, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 581 – HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-25-006989 – CAPITAL ONE NA vs. GILLMORE, JACOB – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court intends to DENY the motion, as Defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties governing this dispute. (Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2.)

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-21-001167 – ELIZONDO, AARON vs. KCB VENTURES INC – Defendant DirectTV LLC’S Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that no triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s Cause of action for Negligence given that the evidence adduced indicates that DirecTV did not own, possess or exercise control over the premises where Plaintiff was injured on March 13, 2019. ( Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts  30-35, D’s Exhibit I, Deposition Testimony of Paul Chahal; (Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc., (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 413, , as modified (Feb. 3, 2014), dismissed, remanded and ordered published sub nom. Coleman v. Medtronic, 331 P.3d 178 (Cal. 2014)).

The Court finds, based on the evidence adduced that triable issues of material fact exist over the degree of control exercised by DirecTV over Plaintiff, and whether Plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor relative to DirecTV,  that preclude summary judgment herein. (Plaintiff’s SDFs 2-13, 15-17, 21, 23; D’s Exh H, Deposition Testimony of Kirk Brown, at pages. 18, 20, 22, 23-24, 53, 54; Defendant’s Ex G, Deposition Testimony of Mike Soto, p. 11; Defendant’s Ex G, Deposition Testimony of Elizondo, p. 11; Arzate v. Bridge Terminal Transp., Inc., (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 419; O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015)).

The Court also finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the applicability of Labor. Code §2750.5 and, if so, whether it is rebuttable in this factual context or operates as a conclusive statutory bar to independent contractor status .

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby denied. (Code of Civil Procedure section 437c).

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to Issue One is hereby granted.

Summary adjudication is denied as to Issues Two through Ten which are all employment related.

Plaintiff’s objection to Ms. Holley’s declaration is sustained on the requested grounds.

Defendant’s objections to Exhibit 8 attached to the declaration of Mr. Crowley and to the declaration of Mr. Lawson are sustained on the requested grounds.  

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:

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