Civil Tentative Rulings

August 14, 2026

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

CV-23-001402 – MARQUEZ, CESAR JIMENEZ vs GONZALEZ & CASAS FLC CORP – Plaintiff Cesar Jimenez Marquez’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Compel Payment by Defendants According to the Terms of the Settlement Agreement, or in the Alternative, to Enter Judgment Against Defendants Gonzalez & Casas FLC Corp and Oscar Vivanco – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions.

1. Did Mr. Vivanco agree to personally guarantee the settlement?
2. Why should judgment be for more than the amount owed by contract?

CV-26-001562 – AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant’s Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to September 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.

The Court needs more time to consider Plaintiff’s response.

CV-26-002823 – COLE, KAYLA RENEE vs UHAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS’ INC – Defendant U-Haul Co. of California’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court still doesn’t have the First Amended Complaint. It appears to have been rejected again for lack of a proof of service.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 22***

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

CV-22-004004 – GRAY, EDWARD vs SKY HOTELS INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Class Counsel Award and Service Awards – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service demonstrates notice of less than 16 court days, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) and contemplated by the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the instant settlement on 1-22-26.

CV-25-002053 – MILLER, JOSHUA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees for Time Actually Expended and Reasonably Incurred – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 14, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that counsel herein has experience with these types of matters and is presumably well-acquainted with the law governing the determination of reasonable fees and expenses pursuant to the statute.  Nevertheless, these types of fee disputes are commonplace and appear to reflect a default pattern of refusing to compromise in favor of “trying their luck” before the court, thus wasting judicial resources in the hopes of obtaining a ruling favoring their side.

The Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer as to such issues are undertaken in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by October 2, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The Court strongly encourages the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another. Should counsel for the parties be unable to reach a reasonable compromise of any of the issues presented by the instant motion, the Court may require personal appearances at the time of the continued hearing to further address the issues herein.

CV-26-001432 – CARLOS, JUAN vs TEEPLES PLUMBING & DRILLING INC – Defendant Teeples Plumbing & Drilling, Inc’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

The Court exercises its discretion to decline to consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition herein.

Based on its review of the moving papers, the Court finds that the demurrer should be sustained in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The allegations fail to plead statutory liability with the requisite specificity, particularly as to the elements of Defendant’s knowledge and intent, Meta’s underlying violation(s), and/or Plaintiff’s cognizable damages, where applicable.

Moreover, the Court notes the absence of any binding California law applying the provisions of Penal Code §§ 631(a) or 638.51 to instances of internet-based activities such as those alleged herein. Therefore, the Court harbors significant doubts about Plaintiff’s ability to plead a viable claim under those statutes.

Nevertheless, the Court will grant leave to amend in this instance. Plaintiff shall submit his Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

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

CV-23-001643 – EDVALSON, ERIC, III VS CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED.

As a preliminary matter Plaintiff’s timing concerns regarding the original hearing date of this motion have been addressed by the continuance of the motion.

Additionally, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Amended Separate Statement are overruled. While the court did not expressly grant Plaintiff leave to file a supplementary separate statement since the court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct the PMK deposition for purposes of being able to mount his defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment and given the importance of a separate statement as far as the Motion for Summary Judgment is concerned, it would be reasonably anticipated that Plaintiff would use the information obtained from said deposition including by the filing of an Amended Separate Statement.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted, limited to the existence of the requested Exhibits. Evidence Code §452. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453.

After a review of all the testimony and evidence adduced, the Court finds that triable issues of material fact exist as to the applicable Statute of Limitations to Plaintiff’s claims.

The May 12, 2022, correspondence lists only “City of Modesto Risk Management Division,” lacks an individual signature, and was served with a proof of service signed by a third-party employee in Bakersfield; raising a triable issue as to whether this constitutes written notice “of action taken” given “in the manner prescribed by Government Code § 915.4” from an authorized source.  This is a triable issue impacting the Government Code § 913 predicate compliance. (Defendant’s UMFs 1-9, Defendant’s Exhibit 2, Plaintiff’s Amended Additional UMFs 10-31, Plaintiff’s Exhibit C, Braley Deposition pp. 5-6, 8-9,12-17,19, 20-22 and 24-25).

A triable issue of material fact exists as to the authority underlying Defendant’s alleged Government Code §913 predicate compliance based on Defendant’s inability to conclusively identify the City employee who rejected the claim or directed issuance of the May 12, 2022, notice; or to identify a decisionmaker or to identify any City Council resolution or written delegation to Risk Management.

These unresolved facts determine whether the six‑month provision under Government Code §945.6(a)(1) was triggered by a Government Code § 913‑compliant notice or whether the two‑year period under § 945.6(a)(2) applies, making them outcome‑determinative and precluding summary adjudication on Defendant’s Statute of Limitations defense. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c; Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

CV-23-004874 – POLOUS, MICHAEL vs ROSS F CARROLL INC – Defendant’s Motion to Leave to File Cross-Complaint – GRANTED, unopposed.

A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him. Code of Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b). The existing parties’ proposed parties and claims are interconnected.

Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10 permits a party to an action to file a cross complaint against other than parties to the action at any time before the court has set a date for trial but requires leave to be obtained from the court and to be granted in the interest of justice. This rule imposes discretion in the court.  (City of Sacramento v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County (1962), 205 Cal.App.2d 398.)

Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50 also permits a party who fails to plead a cause of action whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, to apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court shall grant leave after notice to the adverse party upon such terms as may be just if the moving party acted in good faith.

Leave of the court to file a cross complaint is also required where a trial has been set.  Loney v. Superior Court (Moneta) 1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 719). Trial has been set here for May 2027 and leave of the court is thus required to file a cross complaint.  

In Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, the Court held that a motion to file a cross complaint at any time during the course of an action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated, where forfeiture would otherwise result.  The court finds that no indication of bad faith exists here.  

A successful application must be supported by the proposed cross-complaint. Defendant’s proposed cross complaint is attached to their application herein.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted.

Defendants are hereby granted leave to join Mozingo Construction Inc. to this action within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order.

Defendants shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court’s ruling no later than August 21, 2026. 

CV-24-007318 – TOPETE, JAIME vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc’s Motion for Relief Under CCP 473(b) – DENIED.

Defendant has not met its burden to establish entitlement to discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Although Defendant characterizes the $79,644.83 settlement amount in the accepted section 998 offer as an inadvertent drafting error, Defendant admits that no specific monetary figure was discussed or agreed upon before the offer was served. The written section 998 offer drafted and served by Defendant was accepted by Plaintiffs on December 30, 2025. Defendant’s showing does not include contemporaneous documentation establishing that $39,822.41 was the authorized or agreed amount before the offer was served.

While Defendant’s motion is timely filed, relative to Defendant’s claim that the erroneous offer was discovered shortly after Plaintiff’s December 30, 2025, acceptance, Defendant has not shown timely action in revoking the offer. The record contains competing evidence concerning when Defendant first advised Plaintiffs that it intended to vacate the settlement. Plaintiffs’ evidence includes an April 16, 2026, email referencing a March 19, 2026, discussion regarding vacating the settlement, while the written record also shows post-acceptance communications concerning settlement performance and vehicle surrender up until April 15, 2026. On this record, Defendant has not established reasonable diligence.

“Where the mistake is excusable and the party seeking relief has been diligent, courts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision of section 473 if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue.” Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002), 28 Cal.4^th 249,258.  Plaintiffs assert a loss of their prevailing party status and their related entitlement to attorney fees on the motion they have filed in that regard. No such motion presently appears on the court files. Plaintiffs are prejudiced by a forfeiture of their March 2026, trial date and a return of this matter to calendar for trial under circumstances where Plaintiffs had been given the impression that the case was settled.

Defendant has also not established grounds for rescission under Civil Code section 1689(b). Civil Code section 1689(b) permits rescission when consent was given by mistake.  However, where the plaintiff has no reason to know of and does not cause the defendant's unilateral mistake of fact, the defendant must establish the following facts to obtain rescission of the contract: (1) that defendant made a mistake regarding a basic assumption upon which the defendant made the contract, (2) that the mistake has a material effect upon the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to the defendant, (3) that the defendant does not bear the risk of the mistake, and (4) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001).

The alleged mistake concerns a monetary term selected and inserted by Defendant in its own statutory offer. Defendant has not shown that Plaintiffs caused or knew of the alleged mistake, that Defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, or that enforcement would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001; Reed v. Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244; Civ. Code, § 1654; Westmoreland v. Kindercare Education LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 967. Notably, Plaintiff’s sued for recission of the vehicle purchase contract and for damages as well as a double civil penalty. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s section 998 offer essentially provided for a statutory repurchase and a one-time civil penalty ahead of a looming trial date is not unheard of and Defendant’s do not dispute this.

Finally, in reforming a written agreement, a court may transpose, reject, or supply words, but has no power to make new contracts for the parties; rather, the court may only reform the writing to conform with the mutual understanding of the parties at the time they entered into it, if such an understanding exists. (Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516).  Defendants have not demonstrated that the parties had an understanding regarding Defendant’s revised section 998 offer. Therefore, the Court declines to substitute Defendant’s June 15, 2026, revised section 998 offer for the accepted December 29, 2025, offer, as Plaintiffs did not accept the revised offer.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied.

CV-25-004133 – MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC vs FIGUEROA, MONICA – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant’s Counsel Alexander Penley of Cordoba Legal Group fails to check the required boxes on his supporting declaration, Form MC-52, affirming that counsel has confirmed his client’s address within the last 30 days or has been unable to confirm the client's address. Counsel also failed to check whether trial has been set in this matter, and if so, the date for which trial has been set. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1362(d).

The 30-day confirmation requirement is substantive, not merely technical and places an affirmative investigative obligation on counsel before filing the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

CV-26-000068 – JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO – a) Defendant’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. b) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a-b) The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings.

Therefore, this matter is continued to August 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court to be heard with defendant Doctor’s Medical Center of Modesto’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

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 for Department 19***