Civil Tentative Rulings

October 21, 2026

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

CV-26-008870 – HEDBERG, KENNETH R vs KHAMIS, ARTHUR – Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award - GRANTED.

The case was continued as Mr. Khamis appeared and said he wished to challenge service and the ruling.

The Arbitration Award made on September 13, 2023, by Arbitrator David Pallack in the matter of Arbitration Between Arthur Khamis, Client, and Kenneth R. Hedberg, Attorney, is CONFIRMED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Petitioner Kenneth R. Hedberg and against Respondent Arthur Khamis in the sum of $8,553.16 plus interest in the amount of 10% per annum from October 23, 2023, to the date of the Court’s signed judgment on the instant petition. Post judgment interest shall accrue on the judgment at the statutory rate from the date of entry of judgment until paid.

Petitioner to submit and serve a proposed order and judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

On September 4, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition to confirm arbitration award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1285 – 1288.8. Respondent was served on September 20, 2026. There is no response in the Court file.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) The prevailing legal interest rate is 10 percent per annum. (Civ. Code, §§ 3287(b), 3289(b).)

Petitioner seeks to confirm an attorney-client fee arbitration award in the amount of $8,553.16. The arbitration award was made on September 13, 2023, and notice was mailed on September 18, 2023. Petitioner also seeks interest at the statutory rate from October 23, 2023. Under Code Civ. Proc. section 685.010 that is simple interest at 10% which is $2,561.28. The total due is $11,114.44

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-24-002391 –MUNOZ, JUAN HERNANDEZ vs GUTIERREZ, VELIA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees - DENIED, and unopposed.

Pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(e), Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $31,203.00 and costs in the amount of $275.00. There is no opposition or reply on file.

“[A] plaintiff seeking an award of attorney fees from a defaulting defendant must request those fees at the time the plaintiff requests entry of default.” (Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1480; Code Civ. Proc., § 585; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

The Court entered judgment by default on June 23, 2026, which included an award of costs in the amount of $1,423.16. “[A] party seeking entry of a default judgment must apply for all of the relief sought—including attorney fees—when application is made for entry of default.” (Garcia, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at 1479.)

The Court originally heard this matter on September 9, 2026, and its tentative ruling was to deny the motion. Plaintiff asked for an opportunity to provide supplemental briefing. The Court therefore continued this matter to October 21, 2026.

In his supplemental brief filed on September 24, 2026, Plaintiff contends that “… Plaintiff here requested [attorneys’ fees] expressly, by statute, in the document on which the Court entered judgment, and in the same paragraph from which the Court took the costs it awarded.” (Supp. Br., at p. 3.) Plaintiff also argues (1) this was a contested proceeding; and (2) “a substantial portion of Plaintiff’s fees is recoverable as a statutory sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99 for Defendant’s failure to pay arbitration fees, a sanction that is not ‘relief demanded in the complaint,’ that no rule of court requires a plaintiff to include in a default judgment package, and that could not have been quantified when default was requested.”

The Court acknowledges that this was initially a contested proceeding. Defendant Velia Gutierrez d/b/a Gutierrez Motor Plaza filed an answer but then refused to participate in arbitration or litigation. On February 19, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. On March 9, 2026, the Court struck the answer and entered default.

On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a request for court judgment (CIV-100) and checked Item 5, declaration for entry of default. On June 23, 2026, the Court signed the JUD-100 judgment, which indicated court judgment by default. On neither of these forms did Plaintiff list attorneys’ fees. Indeed, on the CIV-100, Plaintiff listed the “Balance” for “attorney fees” as “0.00.” On the JUD-100, the box for Item 6(a)(3), “Attorney fees,” was not checked, and no amount or even “TBD” was indicated.

Thus, Plaintiff’s contention to the contrary notwithstanding, Plaintiff did not set forth attorneys’ fees in the document on which it requested judgment. Consequently, the principles set forth in Garcia appear applicable. The fact that the litigation was partially contested is immaterial. As for Plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees as sanctions under section 1281.99, the notice of motion and motion did not list this ground for fee recovery.

In addition, it is unclear to the Court why the amount of $275 for expert witness fees was not included in the prior cost calculation.  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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

CV- 22-001828 – LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Lupe Longoria to Submit an IME – DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

CV-25-009992 – PAYNE, YOLANDA vs SERRANO, MARIO – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions of $17, 369.95 –CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to November 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has served multiple notices of withdrawal/modification to the requests at issue herein and questions whether sufficient efforts to meet and confer in good faith were undertaken before filing the instant motion. Therefore, the Court believes the potential exists for the parties to resolve and/or further narrow the disputes herein if additional genuine meet and confer attempts are made in good faith.  The hearing is continued for this purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein.

The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement by November 13, 2026, describing their further efforts to resolve the issues. In addition, due to the confusion associated with Plaintiff’s multiple revisions to date, to the extent that any requests remain in dispute at the time of the continued hearing, the Joint Status Statement shall include an updated separate statement which specifically identifies each disputed request, the response(s) thereto, and sets forth the parties’ respective positions with regard to each.

Lastly, the Court reminds counsel 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 Court believes that many, if not all, of the disputes herein are amenable to informal resolution, and the parties are expected to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard. Failure to demonstrate sufficient good faith efforts to comply with this order may result in the Court’s requirement that the parties appear in person at the time of the continued hearing.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD -26-00537 - US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs MONTAGUE, GLORIA J – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.