January 28, 2026

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

CV-24-007707 - DORES, TONY vs FARIA, IRENE CHRISTINE - a) Defendant Irene Christine Faria's Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set one; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21; b) Defendant Irene Christine Faria's Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21; c) Defendant Irene Christine Faria's Motion to Compel Amended Responses to Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

a-c) The Court has concerns about Plaintiff’s choices in this case and further continues the Order to Show Cause. The Court wants to make clear that the order violated was that to meet and confer and to file a joint statement on remaining issues.

 

On December 19, 2025, the Court issued the following tentative ruling, which became the ruling of the Court:

 

                    The Court orders the parties to meaningfully meet and confer on the remaining issues in person or via telephone and submit a joint statement of remaining issues on or                                before January 13, 2026.

 

                    The Court anticipates that the issues will be significantly narrowed.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel did not do this, did not offer any information on the discovery, and did not assist in filing any statement of remaining issues. Plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the January 20, 2026 hearing, though it was a “Hearing Required,” tentative ruling.

 

An OSC was issued as follows:

 

                   Order to Show Cause issued to: LAW OFFICE OF LESLIE F JENSEN to show cause why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions against you for failing to follow                             Courts direct orders and failing to appear.

 

                    Counsel to show why Court should not grant defendant's motions for counsel's failure to appear and failure to comply with Court's orders.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s response was to say that the scheduling failure was not deliberate, and that she had extended an offer to Defendant. This was not what the Court required.

 

Plaintiff asserts more work is being done to provide supplemental responses, but no information on what the concession that further responses are required entails.

 

Further briefing is authorized as follows: Any supplemental briefs, joint statements, or other information that will assist the Court in determining or, especially, limiting the issues may be filed on or before February 6 at 4 p.m. Even if the issues are entirely resolved, the Court will not vacate the hearing date. 

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

PR-21-000344 - ESTATE OF REYES, RUDOLPH - Defendant’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The unopposed motion of Attorney Michael E Godbe of The Legacy Lawyers, P.C., to be relieved as counsel for Reynaldo Reyes is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. Because the client’s current address could not be confirmed, Moving Counsel is ordered to serve the signed order on the client via mail at his last known address as well as by delivering a copy care of the clerk of the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1011(b) and Rule 3.252 of the California Rules of Court. In addition, Moving Counsel shall email a courtesy copy of the signed order to the client and give telephonic notice of the ruling, including the information for the next event on calendar, at the client’s phone number.

 

The proposed order needs to be corrected. Item 3(b) on the order should be checked instead of Item 3(a). Moving Counsel to submit a corrected proposed order within five court days.

 

PR-21-001327 - ESTATE OF LEARY, ANECIA - Objector’s Motion for Order Determining Good Faith of Settlement - HEARING REQUIRED.

This matter was continued from January 16, 2026, for Moving Party to file points and authorities on how a motion for order determining good faith settlement is, for all practical purposes, the same as petition for approval of a settlement agreement.

Moving Party contends that, because this is a court of general jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for order determining good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. The Court does not dispute that it does, in theory, have jurisdiction over such motions. What it does dispute is the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 to this estate case.

The statutory scheme found in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 875 et seq. was the result of 1957 tort contribution legislation. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494–495.) It initially “applied only to tortfeasors against whom a money judgment had been jointly rendered” but then was expanded by case law to include “a related remedial theory of partial indemnity which is broadly applicable to all multiple tortfeasors.” (See id.) Then, in 1987, § 877.6(a) was amended to include the phrase, “or co-obligors on a debt.” Although legislative materials for that era are not readily available online, one can theorize that this was likely a legislative response to the case of C. L. Peck Contractors v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 828, wherein it had been held that express contractual obligations regarding indemnity were excluded from a determination of good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6.

So, this statutory scheme is specific to torts and to certain contractual obligations related to indemnity. A probate estate or trust case, in contrast, sounds in neither tort nor contract law. It is for this reason that the Court finds Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 inapplicable.

Moving Party then argues that the motion at bar fulfills all the requirements for a petition brought under Probate Code § 9837 and further contends that notice was given pursuant to Probate Code § 1220, as required by Probate Code § 9837(c). But the Court cannot determine that notice was correctly given unless the petition includes a list of all the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate and their current addresses. Otherwise, there is no master list against which to check the notice of hearing. It is for this reason that the Court stated that the papers must set forth and identify the heirs. (See 1/22/26 Supp. Mem., at p. 2.) This list is especially important in a case such as this one, where two of the beneficiaries (Jennifer Martinez and Paul Leary) did not participate in the settlement formation and are not signatories to the agreement. Furthermore, as a procedural matter, notice under Probate Code § 1220 requires the use of mandatory Judicial Council forms—in this case, the DE-120. Moving Party did not give notice for this motion on that form.

Finally, the Court notes that a probate petition is required to be verified, meaning that the Moving Party (or, under certain circumstances, her counsel) attests under penalty of perjury that the statements in the petition are true and correct. A motion has no such requirements, and there is no supporting declaration from the Moving Party here corroborating under penalty of perjury the statements made in the motion.

Now, with that stated, the Court may be willing to overlook the failure to serve the DE-120 Notice of Hearing, deem this a petition for approval of a settlement agreement, and conditionally approve the petition if, at the hearing on this matter, Moving Party agrees to (1) pay the filing fee difference between a petition and a motion, and (2) file a verified supplement attesting under penalty of perjury that all the representations contained in the motion are true and correct and that the “Service List” attached to the proof of service for the motion filed on December 15, 2025, contains a true and accurate list of the names and current addresses of all beneficiaries and heirs of the estate and any parties who have requested special notice. The Court will discuss this proposal with the Moving Party’s counsel at the hearing.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-25-002382 - SIERRA NORTHERN RAILWAY vs CUSHING, ROBERT R - Defendants’ Robert R. Cushing and Margo Cushing Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Examination of Plaintiff’s Person Most Qualified - HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel shall appear to advise the Court of the status and current relevance of the subject dispute in light of the parties’ stipulation and the Court’s orders entered on 12-18-25.

CV-25-002878 - BAHADORI, BASIRAH vs CAL VALLEY JACK INC - Defendants Cal Valley Jack, Inc., and Yadav Enterprises, Inc., and Ana Munoz’s Motion to Compel Arbitration - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to March 10, 2026 at 8: 30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that the papers herein disclose the existence of a related earlier-filed action pending in Alameda County Superior Court, but no Notice of Related Case has been submitted in either action as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.300. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, and defense counsel is directed to submit the required Notice of Related Case in both actions by February 4, 2026, in order to allow for the Alameda court’s consideration of whether informal or formal coordination efforts should be pursued herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 3.300(h)(2).)

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

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

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***