Civil Tentative Rulings

June 17, 2026

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

CV-22-004582 - E, L vs DOE 1 - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Admissions; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 18, 2026 to be heard with other motions; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 18, 2026 to be heard with other motions.

a-b) In the interests of the Court and the parties, the hearings will be held on the same date.

CV-25-002522 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs BOYER, MARESSA - Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - GRANTED and unopposed.

Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties of May 2025, and Defendant’s failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said Stipulation entitling Plaintiff to judgment.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $784 paid to Plaintiff pursuant to said Stipulation, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $7707.00 (Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

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

CV-21-001363 - NARANJO, JOSHUA vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of Declaratory Judgment and Breach of Contract Causes of Action - CONTINUED to June 18, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Defendant, Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc's Motion to Seal Records Filed in Connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification - CONTINUED to June 18, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The hearings are continued on the Court's own motion for coordination with the related motion currently set for June 18, 2026, and for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to June 18, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-22-005673 - WORTHINGTON, SUSAN vs CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to December 2, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The settlement administrator submitted a declaration on May 13, 2026. The declaration states that a total of 149 settlement checks, totaling $37,946.02, remain uncashed after the check cashing deadline. The declaration further states that the uncashed funds will be held for six months, that “[n]o later than October 29, 2026, ILYM Group will submit the final updated unclaimed amount and the names and contact information of all Class Members whose funds remain unclaimed,” and that ILYM Group will thereafter transfer all unclaimed funds to the State Controller’s Office. The Court notes that the amount of funds issued is missing from paragraph 9 of the declaration.

Having reviewed and considered the declaration filed on May 13, 2026, the Court CONTINUES this matter to December 2, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for (1) a supplemental declaration from the settlement administrator (to be filed on or before October 29, 2026) confirming the final unclaimed amount and the names and contact information of all Class Members whose funds remain unclaimed and (2) a proposed order authorizing ILYM Group to transfer all unclaimed funds to the State Controller’s Office.

CV-26-000148 - GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INC vs CITY OF MODESTO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SOLID WASTE DIVISION - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court will hold a hearing on the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate. For the following reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the petition.

 

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Gilton Solid Waste Management Inc. (“Gilton”) filed the instant Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate to set aside 14 administrative citations issued by Respondent City of Modesto (“City) for the illegal dumping of over 1,200 mattresses at City’s mattress recycling center. On April 16, 2026, City submitted an Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice. On May 1, 2026, Petitioner Gilton submitted a Reply.

Writ of Administrative Mandate

“Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(a).) “The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(b).) “Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Ibid.)

“If the administrative decision involved or substantially affected a ‘fundamental vested right,’ the superior court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo in which the court must examine the administrative record for errors of law and exercise its independent judgment upon the evidence. [Citations.]” (JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1057.) “Where no fundamental vested right is involved, the superior court's review is limited to examining the administrative record to determine whether the adjudicatory decision and its findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” (Ibid.)

Respondents unopposed Request for Judicial Notice

The Court is inclined to GRANT City’s unopposed request for judicial notice.

Gilton’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

Modesto Municipal Code Section 5-5.106(a) makes it unlawful to dump bulky items on public property without consent or approval. (AR 3-13.) Petitioner Gilton received 14 citations for illegally dumping over 1,200 mattresses at the City’s mattress recycling center, often when the site was closed, from April 4, 2025 to May 2, 2025. (AR 3-173–3-176.)

Petitioner argues that it was proper to leave the mattresses at the recycling center site because that is the location City has established to recycle mattresses and there is a sign posted stating that the mattresses can be left at the site when the recycling center is closed. (AR 4-2.) City contends that the recycling center is for residents only and is not for Petitioner because Petitioner is franchised as a collector for City and is contractually required to take waste to another facility. (AR 3-33; AR 5-8.) The parties’ contract does not appear to specify the location where Petitioner is required to take recyclable materials, which the contract defines as distinct from waste. (AR 3-33–AR 3-35.) In addition, City’s recycling center has a drop off limit of 10 units maximum. (AR 3-167; AR 5-3.) It is undisputed that Petitioner exceed the 10 unit maximum.

Petitioner also argues that City was required to “[i]ssue 5-day Notice of Violation to offender if it meets the requirements of the City of Modesto Municipal Code sections 5-5.106 and 9-9.301.” (AR 4-11.) But the 5-day notice applies to mattresses dumped on private property only. (AR 5-33–5-35.)

Accordingly, it does not appear that City violated any provision of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

CV-26-001469 - AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT - Defendants, CCTMO LLC & T-Mobile's Demurrer to Complaint - OVERRULED as MOOT.

The original complaint was superseded by the First Amended Complaint filed on June 3, 2026. Consequently, the demurrer to the original complaint is OVERRULED as MOOT

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Cyril L Lawrence and Cyril Lawrence Inc. from Representing Respondent, and for Related Relief - DENIED as MOOT.

A substitution of attorney form having been filed on June 8, 2026, indicating that Attorney Lawrence and his firm no longer represent the Respondent (but rather, she is currently representing herself), the motion to disqualify Attorney Lawrence and his firm is DENIED as MOOT.

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

CV-25-002532 - K, E vs TOM, KATHY, DO - a) Kaiser Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action - DENIED; b) Kaiser Defendants‘ Motion to Seal Confidential Declaration of Vladimir Bien-Aime in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a)            Based on review of the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement herein. In this context, the party seeking to compel arbitration must still demonstrate the employee member’s assent to the arbitration provisions. (Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 569.) Here, Defendants are unable to produce evidence of the decedent’s participation in the health plan enrollment procedures which sufficiently demonstrates that she was aware of and assented to the subject arbitration provisions at any time relevant to the analysis herein.

In view of the Court’s conclusion in this regard, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on the application of Health & Saf. Code § 1363.1 and the federal preemption issues raised by the defense herein.

Lastly, Defendants’ counsel are cautioned that citation to Superior Court cases is generally not permitted. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 fn. 2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Defendants’ attempt to cite such rulings in order to persuade the Court herein is facially improper. The Court has a duty of independence which prevents reliance on unpublished cases. (Judicial Canon 1.)

b)            The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that the subject declaration of Mr. Bien-Aime, and specifically Exhibits H and I thereto, contains Plaintiff’s private and confidential health information that arguably is unrelated to the issues to be determined in the case. As such, the Court finds that the subject materials implicate Plaintiff’s overriding privacy interests in her personal information and that a substantial probability exists that such interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed with regard to such materials. In addition, the scope of the information to be shielded from disclosure is sufficiently narrow, specifically concerning very minimal portions of the subject exhibits. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550.)

The Court further notes that Defendants’ reply brief seeks an order sealing additional materials submitted in connection with said reply; the Court declines to consider this request, which has not been made with proper notice at this juncture.

CV-25-008224 - SALAS, LADONNA S vs MODESTO MMP VI INC -  Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively Stay Proceedings; Alternatively Request for Statement of Decision - GRANTED.

Based on review of the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement covering the claims asserted herein, and that Plaintiff has refused to submit to arbitration as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) 

In addition, the Court finds that the agreement is subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, due to Defendant’s evidence demonstrating that the subject agreement involves interstate commerce.  (9 U.S.C. § 2.) The Court also recognizes that the agreement herein expressly elects the application of California procedural law and rules regarding arbitration in this instance; however, the Court finds that the agreement does not unambiguously express a specific intent to apply the provisions of Labor Code § 229 to the parties’ dispute herein, and that section is preempted by the FAA. (See, e.g. Nixon v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 934, 948-949.)

Regarding Plaintiff’s assertion of unconscionability, the Court finds only a slight degree of procedural unconscionability in connection with the presentation of the agreement by the employer.  In addition, the Court finds only one example of substantive unconscionability in the agreement, i.e., the fee-shifting provision relative to the instant motion to compel arbitration. (See, e.g. Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5^th 478, 507.)  In that regard, the Court finds that the offending provision should be severed from the agreement in accordance with the provisions contained therein.  As no other indicia of substantive unconscionability are present, the agreement is not invalid on that ground.

Lastly, as to the question of whether class claims are included within the scope of arbitrable issues in this instance, the Court finds that question to be more properly submitted to the arbitrator for determination. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233.)

All remaining proceedings, including the representative (PAGA) claim asserted in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, are stayed pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to September 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard following the hearing on Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

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

CV-18-003129 - OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration on Order Granting Summary Judgment - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff’s motion.

California Code of Civ Pro § 437c, subd. (h) permits the Court to order a continuance on a Motion for Summary Judgment to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had,  where facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented. “

The Court finds that information related to the precise location and extent of the Defendant’s 2017 fencing installation relative to the open approach  Decedent used, when Defendant set the fencing in motion, what prompted it, and whether fencing this corridor reduced pedestrian incidents are relevant to the issue of foreseeability of risk herein, and the potential imposition of a duty to remedy on Defendant and to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to this Motion.  However, due to the late amendment to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, said information was not relevant and or previously available to oppose Defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is continued at Plaintiffs’ request to permit discovery into this additional material evidence.  (Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015), 238 Cal.App.4th 632, review filed, review denied; Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. ( 2005), 134 Cal.App.4th 1350; Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627). 

Accordingly, this matter is continued to August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set  One, Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.  

The Court finds that the parties will benefit from further meet and confer to narrow down the discovery requests in dispute.

 

In this regard, the Court notes Defendant’s reliance on California Assembly Bill No. 1755, § 871.26(h)(1) – (17) and notes that this list refers to “initial disclosures”, is not an exhaustive list and does not preempt statutory discovery.

 

Accordingly, Counsel are ordered to engage in substantive meet and confer efforts “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion” prior to the next hearing date (Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040).

 

Parties are reminded that civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277). Good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

 

The parties shall file a joint status statement of not more than ten (10) pages not later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion.  The joint status statement shall indicate which of Defendant’s responses remain at issue.

 

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court for further good faith meet and confer on the disputed discovery. 

CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - CONTINUED, by stipulation.

 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of June 5, 2026, this matter is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.  

CV-26-001048 - LANDUCCI, STEPHEN vs ROWE, BENJAMIN - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend; b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Suit [CCP 425.16] - MOOT.

a) Request For Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of documents and proceedings from Stanislaus County case number PR-23-000109.

Under Evidence Code section 452, the Court may take judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of court records but may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual findings contained therein.

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

• The request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence, filing, and legal effect of the documents, including the fact of settlement and dismissal with prejudice.
• The request is DENIED to the extent it seeks judicial notice of the truth of factual assertions or testimony contained in those materials.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The Court assumes the truth of all properly pleaded material facts, but not conclusions of law or fact. The Court also considers matters properly subject to judicial notice.

First Cause of Action-Breach of Contract

The first cause of action fails to state a claim against Defendant and it is barred by the two-year statue of limitations period for oral agreements. (Civ. Proc. Code § 339).

The complaint alleges a contract between Plaintiff and his father, Leo Landucci. Defendant is not alleged to be a party to the contract. A breach of contract claim requires that the defendant be a party to the contract or otherwise bound by it. The complaint affirmatively demonstrates that Defendant was acting solely as the decedent’s attorney. This cause of action also fails due to the Complaint’s failure to allege that Defendant was a party to the agreement he is alleged to have breached. (Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange, (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990).

Plaintiff’s opposition does not meaningfully dispute this defect and instead seeks leave to amend to assert different causes of action.

Additionally, the claim appears time-barred on the face of the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges a breach occurring in July 2021, yet this action was filed in 2026.

The delayed discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. (Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185) The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of the delayed discovery rule such as the date of Plaintiff’s discovery of the relevant facts supporting the cause of action for breach of contract.

The continuing violation doctrine aggregates a series of wrongs or injuries for purposes of the statute of limitations, treating the limitations period as accruing for all of them upon commission or sufferance of the last of them. (Willis v. City of Carlsbad, (2020) 48 Cal. App. 5th 1104; Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185). The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of this doctrine such as allegations of a pattern of reasonably frequent and similar acts by Defendant or a series of wrongs by Defendant that would defeat the applicable Statute of Limitations period herein. 

Because Defendant was not a party to the alleged contract, and this defect cannot be cured by amendment, the demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Second Cause of Action-Fraud

The second cause of action for fraud is based on statements Defendant allegedly made in connection with prior probate litigation, including a declaration submitted to the court.

The claim is barred by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47(b)), which applies broadly to communications made in connection with judicial proceedings. The privilege is absolute and applies regardless of malice.

Plaintiff’s attempt to invoke an “extrinsic fraud” exception is unavailing. The complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiff was prevented from participating in the prior proceeding or otherwise deprived of an opportunity to be heard.

Further, Plaintiff fails to plead the element of reliance. The complaint alleges that the court relied on Defendant’s statements—not Plaintiff. This is insufficient as a matter of law. Judicially noticeable materials also establish that the underlying probate action was resolved by settlement and dismissed with prejudice, further undermining Plaintiff’s assertions of causation and damages.

Because the claim is barred by the litigation privilege and cannot be cured by amendment, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Leave To Amend

Plaintiff requests leave to amend to assert claims for:

1. Tortious interference with expected inheritance, and
2. Breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that amendment would cure the defects.

The proposed claims are legally deficient for the following reasons:

1. A tortious interference claim is unavailable where the plaintiff had an adequate remedy, such as a trust contest, which Plaintiff previously pursued and resolved by settlement.
2. A breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot be asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant, as any duty was owed to the decedent, not Plaintiff, and Plaintiff lacks standing.
3. Any claims based on Defendant’s litigation conduct would remain barred by the litigation privilege.

Accordingly, leave to amend is denied.

Ruling:

1. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
2. Defendant Benjamin Rowe’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to all causes of action.
3. The complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Benjamin Rowe.

b) Based on the Court’s ruling on the related demurrer, this motion is accordingly, moot.

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 for Department 19***