Civil Tentative Rulings

October 27, 2026

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

CV-26-004282 - ABBOTT, MICHAEL KELLY vs BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Petitioner’s Writ of Mandate - CONTINUED to November 18, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Filing of Administrative Record is reset for November 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

All dates are in 2026. At the October 14 hearing on two separate motions brought by Petitioner, Petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to “get it over with” and set the hearing on the petition promptly, as it had been fully briefed. The Court granted this request and set the petition for hearing on October 27 . Respondent’s counsel had suggested a November 10, 2026 to coincide with the administrative record motion filed by Petitioner.

On October 22 Petitioner filed what is styled as a Request for Judicial Notice but in fact states that Petitioner wants his prior motion set for November 10 heard prior to the finding on the Petition. That motion is reset for November 10 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21. The Court declines to advance the motion given that there was no request to do so when this matter was set, and the existence of the motion was known to Petitioner and was raised by Respondent.

Petitioner’s complaints about the Court’s scheduling do not appear meritorious. The matter was filed on April 30. The original date for hearing was July 29. Proof of service does not indicate when the petition was served, but the proof of service was signed on May 11. The Court set a briefing schedule at Petitioner’s request for the opening brief to be due on June 26, the response due July 17 and the Reply due July 23 preserving the July 29 hearing date.

Petitioner obtained ex parte relief from this Court on June 25, 2026 based in part on issues with the administrative record. The motion was to be filed by July 17, the opposition by July 31, and the hearing for August 7.

On July 15, Petitioner filed a stipulation for an extension of time, asserting he had received the administrative record on June 18 and the time estimates Petitioner had made had turned out to be optimistic. The Court reset the hearing for September 10.

Based on another stipulation, the opening brief was then due August 10. Petitioner filed an amended petition on August 14. On August 18, the parties filed a stipulation as to the revised briefing schedule. This included a status conference for September 10 to address outstanding issues with the record. Respondent filed an opposition to the Petition on August 21.

On September 10, the Court set the matter for a motion for Trial de Novo on October 14. A reply brief was filed on September 28. A separate motion for augmentation of the administrative record was filed on September 29 and set for hearing on November 10. This motion had apparently been submitted on an ex parte basis for the September 10 hearing, but I (Judge Mayne) did not receive the motion.

On October 14, at the request of Petitioner, the Court then set this matter for the Petition hearing on October 27. The Court then received the October 22 filing.

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

CV-25-003485 - ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA - a) Defendant's Demurrer to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, and SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action. The Court has reviewed the September 22, 2026, Declaration of Megan D. Johnson and reaches the merits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) - b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Improper Matter from First Amended Complaint - GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and MOOT IN PART.

a) Defendant Anna Cabral’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, and SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action. The Court has reviewed the September 22, 2026, Declaration of Megan D. Johnson and reaches the merits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)

First cause of action: OVERRULED. A limitations bar does not clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the FAC. The FAC does not allege when Plaintiff received the allocation schedules, and whether they adequately disclosed the claim (Prob. Code, § 16460) cannot be resolved on demurrer. The claim asserts the liability presented in Plaintiff’s creditor’s claim, and the amount of a rejected claim does not limit recovery. (Orth v. Superior Court (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 474.) The FAC seeks in personam monetary relief and disclaims adjudication of foreign title (FAC, ¶¶ 6, 51). Whether Plaintiff forfeited any interest under the no-contest clause, and whether any forfeiture could reach her interest in the irrevocable Credit Bypass Trust, does not appear on the face of the FAC and is pending in Case No. PR-23-000289.

Second cause of action: OVERRULED, for the same reasons and because the FAC adequately alleges Plaintiff’s right to specific, identifiable proceeds. (FAC, ¶¶ 39–42.)

Third cause of action: SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND, on the ground that the FAC fails to allege facts showing the absence of an adequate probate remedy. (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039; Munn v. Briggs (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 578.) The expectancy alleged is Plaintiff’s interest in the irrevocable Credit Bypass Trust and the Estate of Manuel S. Machado (FAC, ¶ 49), interests subject to remedies in the consolidated probate proceeding. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of Plaintiff’s petitions filed March 20, 2023, and September 8, 2026, in that proceeding, which seek relief under Probate Code sections 850, 856, and 16420. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 455.) Paragraph 52 is conclusory. The Court does not reach Defendant’s remaining grounds on this cause of action.

Fourth cause of action: OVERRULED. The claim is alleged against Defendant individually for benefits allegedly obtained through wrongful conduct (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379), and Defendant identifies no express contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. The remaining grounds fail for the reasons stated above.

Any Second Amended Complaint shall be filed and served within 10 days of service of notice of this ruling, shall amend only the third cause of action, and shall conform to the ruling on the motion to strike.

b) The Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) The Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and MOOT IN PART, as follows:

Prayer, Sections A, B, and D: DENIED. A rejected creditor’s claim does not cap recovery (Orth, supra), the claim requirement does not limit relief against Defendant individually, and costs are recoverable by statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032). Section C: MOOT.

¶ 23 (p. 4:27–5:2), ¶ 24, ¶ 25, ¶ 41 (p. 8:13–15), and ¶ 50 (p. 9:27–10:2): GRANTED, without prejudice to a noticed motion for leave to amend. These allegations were not in the proposed First Amended Complaint (RJN-1) and were not filed in conformity with the Court’s order granting leave. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)

¶ 44 and Prayer § B(3): DENIED. Punitive damages are sought against Defendant individually only (FAC, ¶¶ 45, 54), and the FAC, read as a whole, alleges sufficient facts of intentional conduct. (Civ. Code, § 3294; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1.) ¶ 53 and Prayer § C(2): MOOT.

CV-25-010166 - MUNOZ, RAMON HERNANDEZ vs FCA US LLC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant FCA US LLC and Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED to December 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Set One from Defendant FCS US LLC, and Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED to December 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

a) A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) As amended effective January 1, 2026, section 2016.040(a) requires facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt, “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. For the reasons stated below as to the companion motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Plaintiff’s written correspondence and request for a future call do not satisfy that requirement, and the Court finds the meet and confer insufficient.

The motion is continued to the same date and time as the companion motion and is subject to the same meet-and-confer and joint-statement requirements set out below, which shall include Special Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 26. The Court defers the merits and monetary sanctions until the continued hearing. The motion remains pending; Plaintiff need not refile it.

b) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), as amended effective January 1, 2026, requires a meet-and-confer declaration to state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt, “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. A motion to compel further responses to inspection demands must be accompanied by a declaration satisfying that requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Plaintiff’s declaration establishes detailed written meet-and-confer efforts. Plaintiff sent a written meet-and-confer letter, Defendant responded in writing, and Plaintiff later proposed a telephone conference. The record does not establish, however, that counsel actually met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by videoconference before the motion was filed. Written correspondence and a request to schedule a future call do not establish compliance with section 2016.040(a). The Court therefore finds the meet and confer insufficient.

The hearing is continued to December 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing, lead counsel or other counsel with full authority to resolve the discovery dispute shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference concerning Special Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 26 and RFP Nos. 45-47 and 50-60. Counsel shall address each interrogatory and request separately and specifically discuss reasonable narrowing by subject matter, defect or symptom, geographic scope, time period, source or database, custodians, and form of production, as applicable.

No later than 5 court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff and Defendant shall file a joint status statement that: (1) identifies the date, duration, and method of the live conference; (2) identifies all participating counsel; (3) describes the parties’ efforts concerning each request; (4) states whether each dispute was resolved, narrowed, or remains unresolved; and (5) identifies the precise relief that remains requested. If further responses or documents are produced, the declaration shall identify them.

The Court defers determination of the merits and monetary sanctions until the continued hearing. The existing motions remain pending; Plaintiff is not required to file new motions.

The required conference must be substantive rather than perfunctory. Counsel should be prepared to discuss concrete compromises, including the level of detail required in a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, limiting the definition of “YOU” in Special Interrogatory No. 26 to personnel who evaluate California prelitigation repurchase requests, limitation of similar-vehicle discovery to conditions documented in Plaintiff’s repair records and whether any case-specific facts support preservation, backup, retention, or destruction-log discovery. The Court expects counsel to eliminate resolved issues and present only genuinely disputed matters at the continued hearing.

CV-26-004028 - LIMA, JOHN vs SIERRA NOTHERN RAILWAY - Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint by Defendant Sierra Northern Railway - SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Federal Railroad Safety Act requires an employee to first file an administrative complaint with the Secretary of Labor, and permits a de novo court action only if no final decision issues within 210 days after that filing. (49 U.S.C. § 20109, subds. (d)(1)–(3).) The complaint alleges no compliance with these prerequisites.

Plaintiff concedes that his OSHA complaint was filed on August 6, 2026, after this action was commenced, that the administrative investigation remains pending, and that amendment cannot retroactively satisfy the statute's administrative prerequisites. Plaintiff therefore has not shown a reasonable possibility of curing the defect by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Plaintiff's alternative request for a stay is DENIED. This ruling rests solely on the prematurity of the claim. It is not an adjudication of the merits and is without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of any remedies available to him under 49 U.S.C. § 20109 in the administrative or federal forum. The court does not reach Defendant's remaining arguments. The action proceeds on the first cause of action. Defendant shall answer the complaint within 10 days. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)

PR-25-001344 - IN THE MATTER OF THE JOHN AND CAMILLE NELSON TRUST - Objector's Motion for Separate Trial of Special Defenses - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court GRANTS the unopposed motion. The Court finds that an initial determination of Respondent’s statute-of-limitations defense under Probate Code sections 16061.7 and 16061.8 may materially narrow or dispose of issues presented by the petition and will promote the economical and efficient handling of this proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 597, 598, 1048, subd. (b).)

Petitioner does not oppose having the limitations and related standing issues determined before the merits of the remaining claims.

The first phase shall address:

        1. Whether the notification by trustee and trust terms were served in a manner sufficient to commence the limitations period under Probate Code section 16061.8;

        2. Whether any challenge to the February 9, 2021 amendment is time-barred;

        3. Which counts or requested remedies constitute a contest of the trust subject to that limitations period; and

        4. The effect of any limitations ruling on Petitioner’s standing to maintain each remaining count.

The Court does not determine the merits of those defenses on the present motion. Nor does the Court conclude that Petitioner’s exclusion under the challenged 2021 amendment, by itself, deprives her of standing to challenge that amendment. (See Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 827.)

Petitioner has proposed that this first phase be decided on the papers. Moving Party did not file a reply; therefore, it is unknown to the Court whether this proposal is acceptable.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding whether a trial by declaration is acceptable to both sides. If so, they shall further confer regarding a focused briefing schedule. The parties shall submit by November 4, 2026, a joint status report that includes, if applicable, a proposed briefing schedule. The Court will then review the joint status report and address scheduling at the November 10, 2026 hearing on the petition.

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

CV-25-011530 - DIAZ, KIMBERLY vs BLYTHE, HOLLY YVETTE - Plaintiff Kimberly Diaz's Motion to Enforce Court Order, Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and for Monetary, Issue, and Evidence Sanctions - DENIED.

Plaintiff failed to submit a separate statement in support of the motion as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345.  This failure constitutes a sufficient ground for denial, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff demonstrates no efforts to meet and confer regarding any perceived deficiencies in the subject responses (served on 8-7-26) prior to filing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).)

The Court further notes that Defendant served second amended responses on 10-13-26.  While Plaintiff continues to argue that the same are deficient, she likewise fails to demonstrate any efforts to meet and confer in that regard. Therefore, it appears that the sufficiency of the second amended responses is not properly before the Court at this stage.

Lastly, counsel are reminded that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) The parties are expected to demonstrate their best efforts to conduct genuine meet and confer communications in good faith before seeking judicial intervention in future discovery disputes.

CV-26-003613 - MAULDIN, VINETTA WANDA vs STANRTA BUS 38 - a) Defendant Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Service of Summons - DENIED; b) Defendant Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, and unopposed.

a)            The motion was filed after Defendant’s demurrer; therefore, it is untimely and Defendant’s arguments regarding

the adequacy of service of process have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(e)(3).)

b)            The Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

Specifically, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Government Claims Act via proper service of a claim on the defendant public entity within the relevant claims period. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety.

The Court will grant leave to amend in this instance despite its substantial doubts regarding Plaintiff’s ability to state a viable cause of action under the circumstances, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the instant demurrer. Plaintiff is cautioned that it is her burden to demonstrate how additional factual allegations can overcome the demurrer and future failures to oppose dispositive motions could result in Plaintiff losing the right to amend her pleading to attempt to allege additional facts to support her stated cause of action.

Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

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

CV-23-004243 - SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED.

The Court notes the Settlement Administrator’s Compliance with the Court’s Final Approval Order herein. Therefore, the hearing is dropped.

However, the parties shall submit a Corrected Final Approval Order and Judgment reflecting the correct name of the Judicial Officer no later than November 3, 2026.

CV-24-003753 - COOPER, LORI vs ROCK STAR LUXURY LIMOS LLC - Final Fairness - GRANTED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court therefore grants final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein. 

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for May 14, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. 

Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***