Civil Tentative Rulings

April 2, 2026

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

CV-21-000069 – HERNANDEZ, ALEXA CAMPA VS. GARCIA, JOSE MADERA – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court will discuss the issues previously raised.

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

CV-22-004042 – AGUEDA, ROBYN vs WALMART INC – a) Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Plaintiff Robyn Agueda’s Motion for Relief from Deemed Admissions per CCP 2033.300(A) & 473(B) – HEARING REQUIRED.

a) Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions

Defendant Walmart’s nonexistent quotations

Defendant Walmart’s memorandum filed on January 20, 2026 appears to contain nonexistent quotations to case law. That is, the quotes Defendant Walmart attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases. The Court notes that the fictitious quotations were present in Defendant Walmart’s prior briefs filed on July 7, 2025 and November 7, 2025.

“[N]o brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.” (Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 431 [emphasis in original].) The use of fabricated quotations is considered a violation of “a basic duty counsel owe[s] to his client and the court.” (Ibid.) Such conduct warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions, notice to the client, and notice to the State Bar. (See ibid.)

At the hearing, the Court may set an order to show cause for why Attorney Alan Gonzalez of Porter Scott APC should not be monetarily sanctioned in the amount of $1000 per fictitious quotation, payable to the clerk of the court, why Attorney Alan Gonzalez should not be directed to serve a copy of the ruling on his client if the OSC is not discharged, and why the clerk of the court should not be directed to serve a copy of the ruling on the State Bar if the OSC is not discharged.

Defendant’s [third] motion for terminating sanctions

Based on the papers, the Court is inclined to DENY Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has hired new counsel and has now complied by responding to the outstanding discovery requests. (See R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496 [“We recognize that terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party.”].) Although Plaintiff’s responses were served belatedly, Plaintiff faced significant hardships which hampered her efforts to obtain new counsel and respond to the outstanding discovery requests. Defendant Walmart argues that the passage of time has impaired its ability to investigate the facts of the case. However, Defendant Walmart has a video of the fall, which Defendant Walmart previously sent to Plaintiff. Thus, any such alleged prejudice is de minimis. Defendant Walmart’s brief makes no argument for alternative evidentiary sanctions.

The Court notes that this case was filed in 2022. At the next case management conference, which is currently scheduled for May 11, 2026 at 1:30 pm, the parties should come prepared to select a trial date within the next 8 to 10 months. To that end, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding possible trial dates and to include information regarding that discussion in their next case management statements.

b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Deemed Admissions

For similar reasons to the above, the Court is inclined to GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for relief from deemed admissions. The Court notes that many of the Requests for Admissions appear to address conclusions of law rather than admissions of fact. (See New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418 [“Section 2033.300 eliminates undeserved windfalls obtained through requests for admission and furthers the policy favoring the resolution of lawsuits on the merits.”].)

The Court notes that this case was filed in 2022. At the next case management conference, which is currently scheduled for May 11, 2026 at 1:30 pm, the parties should come prepared to select a trial date within the next 8 to 10 months. To that end, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding possible trial dates and to include information regarding that discussion in their next case management statements.

CV-25-012733 – PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs FIVE STAR CARRIER XPRESS INC – Plaintiff’s Writ of Possession as to Five Star Carrier Xpress Inc. & Sarvjeet Singh – HEARING REQUIRED.

Plaintiff PNC has filed an Application for Writ of Possession. The Application is unopposed; Defendants have made no appearance in the matter. The case is stayed as to Defendant Sarvjeet Singh.

“Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.010(a).) “[N]o writ shall be issued under this chapter except after a hearing on a noticed motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.020.)

“To obtain possession of tangible personal property through a writ of possession, the plaintiff must establish, inter alia, the basis for its claim, that it is entitled to possession of the property, and the defendant is wrongfully detaining the property.” (Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 714, 726 [340 Cal.Rptr.3d 611, 621], as modified (Jan. 30, 2026), review denied (Mar. 25, 2026).) “The writ can be ordered after a hearing if the respondent establishes the probable validity of his claim to possession of the property, provides an undertaking, and establishes probable cause to believe that the property is located where respondent alleges it to be.” (Sea Rail Truckloads, Inc. v. Pullman, Inc. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 511, 514 [citing Code Civ. Proc. § 512.060].) “The plaintiff establishes ‘probable validity’ by showing ‘it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.’” (Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 714, 726 [340 Cal.Rptr.3d 611, 621], as modified (Jan. 30, 2026), review denied (Mar. 25, 2026) [quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 511.090].)

The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession. (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.020.)

Based on the papers, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Application because it appears that PNC can make the required showing. (See Sea Rail Truckloads, Inc. v. Pullman, Inc. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 511, 514.)

At the hearing, the Court will discuss with the parties whether an undertaking is necessary in this case, and if so, the amount of the undertaking. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 515.010.)

The Court will also address at the hearing the request for a turnover order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 512.070.)

PR-24-000210 – In the Matter of ROBERT SIDNEY JUSTICE AND GAIL OCONNOR JUSTICE 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST – Trustee, Laurie Jamison’s Motion to Reduce Trustee Bond – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court deems this matter a motion to amend the order appointing the successor trustee with bond in the amount of only $105,000.00 instead of $1,441,000.00 required. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Moving Party is to submit an amended order regarding the appointment of the successor trustee revising the bond amount required within five court days.

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

CV-23-004890 – JONES, STUART vs MODESTO INSURANCE CENTER INC – Defendant’s Modesto Insurance Center Inc. and Joseph Mayhue’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

A. Preliminary / Procedural

Opposition service issue. Defendants contend Plaintiff’s opposition should be disregarded as untimely because it was emailed on March 13, 2026, but not accessible until March 17, 2026. Given the absence of demonstrated prejudice, Defendants’ ability to file a substantive reply, and the limited ability to continue the hearing due to the May 5, 2026 trial date, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition on the merits.

B. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of two declarations filed in connection with PSIC’s motion (the declarations of Luis Andrade and Joseph Mayhue, filed January 8, 2026). There is no opposition. The request concerns court records and is an appropriate subject for judicial notice. The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

C. Evidentiary Objections

Defendants’ evidentiary objections are ruled on as follows:

1. Objections Nos. 1 and 3–5: SUSTAINED to the extent the challenged matters are not included with Plaintiff’s submitted opposition evidence (missing/incomplete attachments).
2. Objections Nos. 2 and 6–9: OVERRULED insofar as they rest on generalized grounds such as hearsay/foundation/authentication, which do not warrant exclusion on this record.

D. Merits (Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication)

1. Summary Adjudication – First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) — GRANTED.

The breach of contract claim is predicated on an alleged implied-in-fact agreement to procure tenant-occupied (landlord/tenant) coverage. The undisputed record reflects that the PSIC application signed by Asp is expressly labeled “Dwelling Fire DP-3, Owner-Primary,” indicates “Primary Residence,” includes a “Yes” response to occupancy within 15 days, and contains a warranty above the signature attesting the information is true and correct, with evidence of renewals without change.

On these facts, Plaintiff does not raise a triable issue that MIC or Alexander manifested mutual assent to a definite implied agreement to procure tenant-occupied coverage, as opposed to the owner-primary policy applied for and renewed. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to adjudication in their favor on the contract cause of action.

2. Summary Adjudication – Second Cause of Action (Negligence) — DENIED

Insurance brokers owe a duty to use reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested. Here, Plaintiff’s opposition identifies evidence and inferences suggesting that Terri Alexander—who prepared and submitted the application—knew or should have known the property was a rental/tenant-occupied (including the asserted course of dealing and prior landlord/tenant coverage history) yet completed an owner-occupied/owner-primary application and did not present tenant-occupied coverage.

On this record, there is at least a triable dispute of material fact whether Alexander breached the broker standard of care by failing to present Asp with tenant-occupied coverage (or failing to procure it) given knowledge of the property’s rental status, and whether that breach caused the alleged coverage shortfalls/damages. These are questions for the trier of fact.

3. Summary Judgment — DENIED

Because the negligence claim remains triable, summary judgment as to the entire matter is DENIED.

CV-24-006834 - GRAYS, WILLIE, Jr vs JAMES, PATRICIA – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – OVERRULED. b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – DENIED.

a) The Court finds that the Third and Fourth Causes of Action are sufficiently alleged in the First Amended Complaint and are not uncertain. Moreover, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the defense’s tender of payment in connection with Plaintiff’s challenged claims herein, as the Court cannot conclude that the proffered documents undisputably resolve all issues with regard to the subject claims.

b) The Court finds that the punitive damage allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage. (Civ. Code § 3294.)

CV-24-007778 – DT CALIFORNIA LLC vs ELEVATED EQUIPMENT SUPPLY INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Elevated Equipment Supply Inc. to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant, Elevated Equipment Supply Inc. and Defendant’s Counsel, David G. Halm and Emanuel K. Caros – DROPPED at the request of the moving party, per counsel’s communication with the Civil Clerk’s office on March 24, 2026.

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

CV-22-001340 – CORDERO, LEANDRO vs FLORSHEIM HOMES LLC – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

Given the introduction of new evidence in Defendant’s Reply in the form of Defendant’s Exhibits N-Q to the declaration of Jesmin Alan, Plaintiff is hereby granted the opportunity to respond to same to address the timeliness of Defendant’s present motion. (Jay v. Mahaffey, (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4^th 1522).

The court also hereby gives the parties notice of its intent, on its own motion, to take Judicial Notice of the following court records and requests responses from the parties as to the propriety of taking judicial notice of same – (1) the Court’s December 3, 2025 Minute Order granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Specially Set Motion for Summary Judgement and To Continue Trial, and (2) the Court’s December 8, 2025 Minute Order continuing the hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment from March 4, 2026 to April 2, 2026. ( Evidence Code sections 452, 453, and 455; People v. Preslie, (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 486).

Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply and Response to the Court’s Notice of Intent to Take Judicial Notice shall be no longer than five (5) pages.

Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Notice of Intent to Take Judicial Notice shall be no longer than two (2) pages.

Both pleadings and shall be filed no later than April 8, 2026.

This matter is accordingly continued to April 15^th, 2026, at 8:30am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-23-002153 – WILKINS, JANENE R vs YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT – Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Yosemite Community College District, Set No. Two, and Request for an Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Defense Counsel in the Sum Of $4,550 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes that the parties did not engage in meaningful meet and confer regarding the disputed discovery. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040).

The Court is of the view that the outstanding issues can be resolved by meet and confer between the parties. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith with a view towards resolving same and to file a Joint Stipulated Statement no later than five (5) court days before the next hearing.

The matter is continued to April 29^th, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-005328 – BMO BANK NA vs SUBEDAR TRUCKING INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to CCP 585 and Request for Attorneys’ Fees – GRANTED, in part, HEARING REQUIRED in part.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence proving Defendants breach of the 10/20/20, 3/17/21, and 3/22/21 Loan and Security Agreements between Subedar Trucking Inc. and Plaintiff and the related Unconditional Continuing Guarantees executed by Defendant Sukhwinder Singh  on 10/20/20, 3/17/21 and 3/22/21, and Plaintiff’s entitlement to the sum of $189,319.86, as of July 29, 2025, pursuant with interest in the amount of $73.56 per diem accruing thereafter before entry of judgment; plus attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined later, plus post-judgment interest against Defendants.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of Defendants’ obligations under the said Agreements to surrender the equipment purchased with said loans to Plaintiff upon Defendants’ default. (Civ. Code § 3384; Maxfield v. Burtt (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 102; Korabek v. Weaver Aircraft Corp., (1944) 65 Cal. App. 2d 32).

Defendants are also hereby specifically barred from using said equipment in any manner other than surrendering same to Plaintiff per the terms of said agreement or providing Plaintiff with the location of said equipment so that Plaintiff may recover same. (Civ. Code § 3422).

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to said Loan and Security Agreements in a sum to be determined via a noticed motion for attorney fees and costs.

As far as Plaintiff’s request for a writ of possession is concerned, a hearing is required based on the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §512.020(a).  However, based on the moving papers and evidence, the Court is inclined to GRANT the application on the basis that Plaintiff has established the requirements for issuance of a writ of possession and a turn over order against Defendant, subject to the filing of an undertaking, the terms of which will be addressed at the hearing (Code of Civ. Proc. §§512.060 and 515.010 et seq.)

CV-24-008165 – SMITH, SALLY MARIE vs SPITERI, VANESSA LYNN – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

Good cause existing, Kelli Smith Esq’s motion to withdraw as Counsel for Respondent Ms. Spiteri is hereby granted. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362).

The Court’s Order Relieving Counsel shall take effect upon proof of service of same on Ms. Spiteri.

CV-24-009962 – THE AGRI GROUP INC vs LEAVITT, BURNS D – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes that Defendant did not file Proof of Service of the instant motion with the Court.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s responsive pleading, Proof of Service is relevant for a determination of the timeliness of Defendant’s present motion.

This motion is continued to June 5th, 2026, at 8:30 am 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:

UD-25-001314 – SINGH, JASBER vs KUMAR, MADHUR – Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-25-001370 – JAMKE vs CHAHAL, NAHAR – Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.