Civil Tentative Rulings

July 01, 2026

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

CV-24-008226 – MEDINA, JOHN, Jr vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC - Cross-Defendant Destination Anywhere, INC.'S Demurrer to Defendant/Cross Complainant Bay Cities Paving & Grading, INC.'S Cross-Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is strongly disinclined to permit the cross-complaint to go forward. The Court is inclined to strike the cross-complaint rather than rule on the demurrer for failure to adhere to Code Civ. Proc. 428.50. I do not appear to have a record of my granting permission for the cross-complaint.

The Court does not believe it is required to take judicial notice of filings in the instant case to consider them. 

Bay Cities Paving does not address at all the violation of Code Civ. Proc. section 428.50. If the Court and Medina are correct about this failure, this action should not have been filed by the clerk’s office and it appears any argument otherwise has been forfeited.

As to the merits, the cross-complaint fails at the first turn with the opposition stating various theories of liability unsupported by the complaint. No specificity of responsibility for damages is made.

The Court disbelieves its prior demurrer is binding on this action – Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341 seems entirely unpersuasive for that theory - but issues of workers compensation exclusivity are not obviously abated by this pleading. Bay Cities suggests that this is a coverage and representation issue at its heart, which may well be accurate, but does not save this cross-complaint. Further, Bay Cities declines to address Labor Code section 3864.

Unless there is a good reason not to strike the cross-complaint, the Court does not believe a ruling on the express indemnity clause is ripe.

CV-25-010327 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs ALCARAZ, ROBERTO - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, unopposed.

After full consideration of the evidence, and the written submissions by the Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s moving evidence establishes Defendant’s indebtedness to Plaintiff in respect of Defendant’s credit card issued to Defendant by Plaintiff ending in 1643, for a loan disbursed to Defendant by Plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ agreement in respect of said credit card.  The Court further finds that Defendant has defaulted in repayment on said credit card to Plaintiff.( Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 1-8. Plaintiff’s Exhibits A-D; McBride v. Boughton, (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 37; (Vaughn v. Certified Life Ins. Co. of Cal., (1965) 238 Cal. App. 2d 177).

The Court also finds the absence of a triable issue of material fact regarding Defendant’s said indebtedness to Plaintiff.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in its favor herein  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437(c);(Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., (2001), 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, as modified (July 11, 2001)).

The Court GRANTS judgment in favor of Plaintiff,  successor by merger to Discover Bank and against Defendant Roberto Alcaraz in the instant matter for the sum of $5,310.64 plus costs of $297.61 totaling $5608.25

CV-25-012120 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs BRAY, RADUS L – Defendant’s Motion to Increase Probable Compensation Deposit - GRANTED in part to $189.620.

The parties are to appear for the Case Status Review. The Court intends to set a trial.

The Court cautions Defendant against including settlement negotiations in its filings and as discussed at the last hearing, the Court does not consider them. The Court considered, but rejected, striking the filing entirely due to this violation.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary objections:

1. OVERRULED.
2. SUSTAINED. Evidence Code section 1414 is not met given the section 1152 considerations so foundation is insufficient. If we reached relevance, that objection would be overruled.

3-4: SUSTAINED (Evidence Code § 1152).

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evidence Code § 453).

The Court has broad discretion to consider a motion to redetermine probable compensation including one based on grounds of erroneous factual inputs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.030).

Defendant cites to Zhou v. Unsource Worldwide (2007) 157 Cal.App.4^th 1471, 1478, and Moving Picture Etc. Union v. Glasgow Theaters, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 395, 405) for the proposition that the statements made in the settlement letter are admissible.

But in each of those cases, the statement’s primary purpose was not found to be settlement. In this case, the statements are made in furtherance of settlement. They are not.

This reaches the competing inferences of the tree counts by the appraisers. StanCOG’s appraiser Steve Parent valued the improvements to the property at $41,568 based on 20 large trees, 3 medium trees, and various other items. Defendant counted the trees and found 10 additional large trees. These site improvements were directly calculated into the value.

Defendant’s tree counter located 30 large trees, 111 medium trees, and 143 small trees on the property. Given the nature of the calculation and report by Parent, it appears that some valuation of the additional trees is merited, and StanCOG does not rebut the evidence presented but rather provides what-if criticisms and asserts this is an improper method.

But this was the method used by Parent.

Parent did not assign value to the small trees on the property and it is unclear that is an oversight,so no weight is assigned to those. The 10 additional large trees appear to support an additional $17,620 in the deposit. The evidence of the medium trees might, with more information, support the requested $97,776 amount, but the Court has no information on scale issues. The Court reduces the amount for the medium trees to $50,000.

The total adjusted value is $189,620 as likely probable compensation. I expressly note that this does not bind me if I am the factfinder assuming more or different evidence is presented at a final hearing.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-24-000957 - ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC – a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Carmen Alicea; Request for Sanctions; - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 7-7-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for Her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One’ - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 7-7-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero; Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 7-7-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-c) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 7-7-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard concurrently with the related motions set for hearing on that date.

CV-26-003187 - JONES, ADAM vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Defendant Ford Motor Company’s to Plaintiff Complaint - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

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

CV-25-006234 - RAZO, JUANA vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC – a) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 17.1 and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00- CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. b) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets  LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. c) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admission  (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) The Court notes Defendant’s claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Therefore, the Court is of the view that the parties would benefit from further meet and confer.

Accordingly, parties are hereby ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040;  2017.010).Furthermore,  argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and  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).

This matter is therefore continued to July 24, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than July 16, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.

b) The Court notes Defendant’s claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Therefore, the Court is of the view that the parties would benefit from further meet and confer.

Accordingly, parties are hereby ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040;  2017.010).Furthermore,  argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and  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).

This matter is therefore continued to July 24, 2026. at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than July 16, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.

c) The Court notes Defendant’s claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Therefore, the Court is of the view that the parties would benefit from further meet and confer.

Accordingly, parties are hereby ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040;  2017.010).Furthermore,  argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and  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).

This matter is therefore continued to July 24, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than July 16, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication

CV-25-012485 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs TMOBILE USA INC - Defendant T-Mobile USA, INC.'S Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, unopposed, without leave to amend. 

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s untimely filed demurrer in the absence of prejudice to Plaintiff. (Code of Civil Procedure  §§ 430.40 and 473 (a)(1); Jackson v. Doe, (2011)192 Cal. App. 4th 742; McAllister v. Cnty. of Monterey, (2007)147 Cal. App. 4th 253). Additionally, the motion is unopposed. 

The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts in support of all three of the asserted causes of action for Arbitrary Refusal to Transact Business, Denial of Full and Equal Accommodations and Violation of Civil Rights/Interference. All said three causes of action rely on alleged violations of Civil Code §§ 51, 51.5 and or 51.2 which are insufficiently pled due to the lack of allegations as to discriminatory treatment tied to Plaintiff’s protected status or characteristic. Therefore, these causes of action all fail as a matter of law.  (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007), 41 Cal.4th 160, modification denied; Harrison v. City of Rancho Mirage (2015), 243 Cal.App.4th 162).Allegations of comparator treatment of other non-Black customers also do not plead sufficient facts to allege discriminatory treatment by Defendant based on Plaintiff’s protected characteristic beyond conclusory allegations.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is sustained as to all the asserted causes of action.  (Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10(e), 430.30(a))

Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint is moot in view of the Court’s ruling on the demurrer herein.

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five (5) court days that complies with the Court’s ruling.

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 in Department 19***