Civil Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.12 concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 or ctreport@stanct.org to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-26-000086 - BRADFORD, PATTI vs KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC – a) Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings-HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings -HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant Amazon.Com Services LLC’s Joinder to Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC’s and Chio Saechao's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings – HEARING REQUIRED.
a-c) HEARING REQUIRED.
Defendant submitted memorandums and reply briefs in support of its motions to compel arbitration and for joinder. The Court was unable to locate opposition briefs in the court file and requires the parties’ assistance.
CV-26-000602 - NORFORD, LEON vs MOUNTAIN VIEW SECURITIES INC - Defendant Mountain View Securities Inc.’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Stay the Non-Individual Private Attorney's General Act Claim Pending Completion of Arbitration – CONTINUED to August 19, 2026 at 8:30 in Dept. 23.
The Notice of Related Case was filed after the filing of this motion. Under Rule 3.300, Judge Clifford Tong has ordered this case reassigned to his department.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-012784 - JEVERT FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FARRIESTER, SHAYE – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice, and unopposed.
Defendant’s counsel submitted a notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel on May 7, 2026. The motion is unopposed.
“The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052).” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) “The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.” (Id.)
The motion is procedurally defective because it fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. No declaration or proposed order was submitted.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
PR-22-0001064 – ESTATE OF NUNES, CLARA CONSTANCE – Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DROPPED.
In light of the filing of a substitution of attorney form on June 10, 2026, the motion to be relieved as counsel is moot. The hearing on the motion is therefore DROPPED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-006554 - CAVALRY SPV I LLC vs CARDOZA, RUTH - Plaintiff's Motion for order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 1033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-24-007650 - VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs WAHLEN, RITA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-005384 - BOWERS, LATONA R vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION – a) Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, or Alternatively, for Immediate Expungement- GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal – DENIED.
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the probable validity of her real property claims at this post-judgment stage, i.e., the Court does not conclude that the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the judgment on appeal. (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order of expungement herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32.)
The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38. As no details with regard to the reasonable amount of such an award have been provided at this juncture, Defendant may file a separate motion in that regard.
b) The Court finds that the subject proceedings are not automatically stayed by the pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Further, the Court declines to exercise discretion to impose a stay in this instance.
CV-25-006013 - ARENA FUNDING SOURCE vs BIRMINGHAM, THERESA C - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal - DENIED.
The mandatory provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) are not applicable herein, as the dismissal was voluntarily obtained and did not result from a situation akin to a default. (See, e.g. Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 175; Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 259.) Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether relief is appropriate under the discretionary provisions of the statute.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-005362 - SMITH, RALPH vs HYDRATION SOURCE LLC - Defendant Hydration Source, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - DENIED.
As a preliminary matter the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late filed Opposition to this motion, based on the strong judicial policy of addressing cases on their merits rather than on procedural bases, and the drastic nature of a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, Defendant did not demonstrate any prejudice occasioned by said late filing. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1300 (d); Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640); Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., (1983)146 Cal. App. 3d 29, 1). Plaintiff’s Counsel is, however, required to ensure future compliance with statutory filing deadlines.
Similarly, the Court notes Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the minimum one and a half line spacing of CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 2.108(1) and admonishes Plaintiff’s Counsel against a repeat occurrence of said conduct.
The Court finds after reviewing the evidence and testimony adduced that triable issues of the material fact exist as to all four of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action herein for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA).
Specifically, as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Discrimination, the Court concludes that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant had a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff’s race, whether such animus was a substantial motivating factor in Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff, as to whether Defendant’s proffered basis for Plaintiff’s termination is pretextual, and as to the existence of a causal nexus between Defendant’s claimed discipline and protected activity. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23, ;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at p. 7 and p. 27, ; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs11-13, 15- Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (b)(2); McCaskey v. California State Auto. Assn., (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 947, Arnold v. Dignity Health, (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 412; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, review filed, review denied; Dinslage v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 368; Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 304 88 Cal.App.5th 712; Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908; McKinney v. American Airlines, Inc., C.D.Cal.2009, 641 F.Supp.2d 962; Brown v Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 60 Cal. App. 5th 1092)
As to Plaintiff’s Second and Fourth Causes of Action for Retaliation, triable issues of material fact exist regarding whether Plaintiff’s report of October 2020 and of March 2021 constitute protected activity ,whether Defendant engaged in a continuous retaliatory course of conduct against Plaintiff, whether the discipline against Plaintiff was retaliatory or legitimate and whether Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes intervening misconduct sufficient to sever any causal connection. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91; Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Civ Proc. Code § 437c (b)(2); Cal.Gov. Code § 12940(h); Kelley v. The Conco Companies, (2011)196 Cal. App. 4th 191; Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570; McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Assn., (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 283; Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028).
As to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Harassment, triable issues of material exist as to whether the alleged violating conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and whether it unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Etter v. Veriflo Corp., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457; Govt. Code §12940 (j); Kelley v. The Conco Companies (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191; Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 611).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is also denied as to issues One to Eight consistent with the above rulings.. (Civ. Proc. Code § 437(c); Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1071; Zaragoza v. Adam, (2025), 109 Cal. App. 5th 113, review denied (June 11, 2025); Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Murphy v. Pina, (2025)115 Cal. App. 5th 305).
Evidentiary Objections:
- Defendant’s Objection Number 1 to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 (deposition excerpts): Overruled in part; sustained in part as to legal conclusions and speculation.
- Defendant’s Objection Numbers 2-7 to deposition excerpts on specified topics: Overruled to the extent based on personal knowledge; sustained as to hearsay/speculation lacking foundation. .
- Defendant’s Objections Numbers 8-11 to Powell declaration: Sustained as to legal conclusions and portions lacking case-specific foundation; otherwise overruled to limited HR-practices opinions properly grounded.
- Defendant’s Objections to Smith declaration: Overruled as to personal-knowledge facts; sustained as to hearsay/speculation/legal conclusions.
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-24-000777 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs WANGUN, GWEN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.
UD-26-000408 - ARCHWAY EAH LL LP vs MORALES, MARICELA – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-26-000086 - BRADFORD, PATTI vs KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC – a) Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings-HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings -HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant Amazon.Com Services LLC’s Joinder to Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC’s and Chio Saechao's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings – HEARING REQUIRED.
a-c) HEARING REQUIRED.
Defendant submitted memorandums and reply briefs in support of its motions to compel arbitration and for joinder. The Court was unable to locate opposition briefs in the court file and requires the parties’ assistance.
CV-26-000602 - NORFORD, LEON vs MOUNTAIN VIEW SECURITIES INC - Defendant Mountain View Securities Inc.’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Stay the Non-Individual Private Attorney's General Act Claim Pending Completion of Arbitration – CONTINUED to August 19, 2026 at 8:30 in Dept. 23.
The Notice of Related Case was filed after the filing of this motion. Under Rule 3.300, Judge Clifford Tong has ordered this case reassigned to his department.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-012784 - JEVERT FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FARRIESTER, SHAYE – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice, and unopposed.
Defendant’s counsel submitted a notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel on May 7, 2026. The motion is unopposed.
“The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052).” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) “The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.” (Id.)
The motion is procedurally defective because it fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. No declaration or proposed order was submitted.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
PR-22-0001064 – ESTATE OF NUNES, CLARA CONSTANCE – Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DROPPED.
In light of the filing of a substitution of attorney form on June 10, 2026, the motion to be relieved as counsel is moot. The hearing on the motion is therefore DROPPED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-006554 - CAVALRY SPV I LLC vs CARDOZA, RUTH - Plaintiff's Motion for order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 1033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-24-007650 - VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs WAHLEN, RITA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-005384 - BOWERS, LATONA R vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION – a) Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, or Alternatively, for Immediate Expungement- GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal – DENIED.
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the probable validity of her real property claims at this post-judgment stage, i.e., the Court does not conclude that the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the judgment on appeal. (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order of expungement herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32.)
The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38. As no details with regard to the reasonable amount of such an award have been provided at this juncture, Defendant may file a separate motion in that regard.
b) The Court finds that the subject proceedings are not automatically stayed by the pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Further, the Court declines to exercise discretion to impose a stay in this instance.
CV-25-006013 - ARENA FUNDING SOURCE vs BIRMINGHAM, THERESA C - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal - DENIED.
The mandatory provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) are not applicable herein, as the dismissal was voluntarily obtained and did not result from a situation akin to a default. (See, e.g. Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 175; Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 259.) Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether relief is appropriate under the discretionary provisions of the statute.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-005362 - SMITH, RALPH vs HYDRATION SOURCE LLC - Defendant Hydration Source, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - DENIED.
As a preliminary matter the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late filed Opposition to this motion, based on the strong judicial policy of addressing cases on their merits rather than on procedural bases, and the drastic nature of a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, Defendant did not demonstrate any prejudice occasioned by said late filing. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1300 (d); Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640); Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., (1983)146 Cal. App. 3d 29, 1). Plaintiff’s Counsel is, however, required to ensure future compliance with statutory filing deadlines.
Similarly, the Court notes Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the minimum one and a half line spacing of CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 2.108(1) and admonishes Plaintiff’s Counsel against a repeat occurrence of said conduct.
The Court finds after reviewing the evidence and testimony adduced that triable issues of the material fact exist as to all four of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action herein for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA).
Specifically, as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Discrimination, the Court concludes that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant had a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff’s race, whether such animus was a substantial motivating factor in Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff, as to whether Defendant’s proffered basis for Plaintiff’s termination is pretextual, and as to the existence of a causal nexus between Defendant’s claimed discipline and protected activity. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23, ;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at p. 7 and p. 27, ; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs11-13, 15- Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (b)(2); McCaskey v. California State Auto. Assn., (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 947, Arnold v. Dignity Health, (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 412; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, review filed, review denied; Dinslage v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 368; Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 304 88 Cal.App.5th 712; Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908; McKinney v. American Airlines, Inc., C.D.Cal.2009, 641 F.Supp.2d 962; Brown v Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 60 Cal. App. 5th 1092)
As to Plaintiff’s Second and Fourth Causes of Action for Retaliation, triable issues of material fact exist regarding whether Plaintiff’s report of October 2020 and of March 2021 constitute protected activity ,whether Defendant engaged in a continuous retaliatory course of conduct against Plaintiff, whether the discipline against Plaintiff was retaliatory or legitimate and whether Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes intervening misconduct sufficient to sever any causal connection. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91; Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Civ Proc. Code § 437c (b)(2); Cal.Gov. Code § 12940(h); Kelley v. The Conco Companies, (2011)196 Cal. App. 4th 191; Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570; McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Assn., (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 283; Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028).
As to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Harassment, triable issues of material exist as to whether the alleged violating conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and whether it unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff’s Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff’s Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff’s declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant’s SSUMF’s 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant’s declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Etter v. Veriflo Corp., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457; Govt. Code §12940 (j); Kelley v. The Conco Companies (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191; Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 611).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is also denied as to issues One to Eight consistent with the above rulings.. (Civ. Proc. Code § 437(c); Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1071; Zaragoza v. Adam, (2025), 109 Cal. App. 5th 113, review denied (June 11, 2025); Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Murphy v. Pina, (2025)115 Cal. App. 5th 305).
Evidentiary Objections:
1. Defendant’s Objection Number 1 to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 (deposition excerpts): Overruled in part; sustained in part as to legal conclusions and speculation.
2. Defendant’s Objection Numbers 2-7 to deposition excerpts on specified topics: Overruled to the extent based on personal knowledge; sustained as to hearsay/speculation lacking foundation. .
3. Defendant’s Objections Numbers 8-11 to Powell declaration: Sustained as to legal conclusions and portions lacking case-specific foundation; otherwise overruled to limited HR-practices opinions properly grounded.
4. Defendant’s Objections to Smith declaration: Overruled as to personal-knowledge facts; sustained as to hearsay/speculation/legal conclusions.
5.
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-24-000777 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs WANGUN, GWEN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.
UD-26-000408 - ARCHWAY EAH LL LP vs MORALES, MARICELA – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.