Civil Tentative Rulings

October 02, 2026

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

CV-25-006808 – ALLEN, PAMELA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – a) Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant’s Motion to Conduct a Neuropsychological Examination of Plaintiff [CCP 2032.310] - HEARING REQUIRED.

a) Plaintiff’s opposition is stricken as untimely. However, Defendant’s request appears to be based on agreements not to begin discovery in earnest until August, and this motion was filed on August 26, Further, Defendant made no effort to secure what they allege is a necessary witness for the trial date.

Under case law, Rules of Court, and judicial canons, trial dates are firm. Failing to treat trial dates as firm is not good cause for a continuance. Plaintiff shall be prepared to inform the Court if and when they will sign medical records authorizations and whether they consent to an IME by a doctor who will be present at trial.

b) Counsel suggests that they are entitled to an examination by a doctor who is not available for the trial. This does not appear to serve a purpose related to the case. 

CV-25-008466 – WRIGHT, CALVIN vs KHUU, JOHN – Defendant’s Exp Realty of California, Inc. and Barbara Maybee’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations from Plaintiff Calvin Wright’s Second Amended Complaint – GRANTED, without leave to amend.

Moving Defendants to give notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5.)

On August 24, 2026, Defendants eXp Realty of California, Inc. and Barbara Maybee filed the instant motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436. Plaintiff timely opposed and Defendants timely replied.

Punitive damages are available “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294.) “ ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Id.) “Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)

The issue is whether Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pleads oppression, fraud, or malice within the definition of Civil Code section 3294 in order to support a prayer for punitive damages. Paragraph 29 of the SAC contains a conclusory statement that Defendants knew of certain water availability problems and intentionally failed to disclose said problems to Plaintiff, but the SAC is devoid of any factual assertions to support such a conclusion.

In addition, the SAC does not contain sufficient allegations to support punitive damages against the corporate defendant. Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)

Leave to amend

The Court has granted leave to amend twice before, and it does not appear likely that such leave will alter the result. Therefore, leave to amend is denied.

CV-26-006052 – BALDWIN, MICHAEL vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Petition for Relief from Government Code 945.4 Pursuant to Government Code 946.6 - – GRANTED as to causes of action for alleged statements made on or near October 27, 2025 and January 6, 2026. DENIED as to all else.

The Court overrules the objections to the evidence in the reply.

On June 10, 2026, Petitioner Baldwin filed a petition seeking relief from the claim presentation requirements of Government Code Section 945.4 and permitting him to proceed with civil claims against Respondent County of Stanislaus. On July 24, 2026, Respondent filed an opposition. On August 14, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended reply. On August 18, 2026, Respondent filed objections to new arguments submitted in Petitioner’s amended reply. On August 20, 2026, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s objections. On September 11, 2026, Respondent filed a sur-reply pursuant to the Court’s direction.

Factual and procedural summary

Petitioner Baldwin alleges that he was involved in the development and operation of reentry and rehabilitation programs within Stanislaus County. Petitioner further alleges that beginning in approximately March 2025, County officials acted in a manner to damage Petitioner’s contractual relationships, business opportunities, reputation, funding sources, and professional standing.

Petitioner communicated with County and believed that County was conducting an audit or investigation into Petitioner’s allegations.

On or about March 1, 2026, Petitioner submitted a Government Claim to County. County denied the claim because it was not presented within six months of the alleged event or occurrence.

Subsequently, Petitioner submitted an Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim to County. County denied the application on May 19, 2026.

Petitioner’s Government Claim lists the following “non-exhaustive” causes of action:

• Tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage;
• Negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation;
• Negligent supervision and retention;
• Conversion/misappropriation of proprietary materials;
• Civil rights violations under California Constitution (due process) and related state law causes of action;

• Defamation (including republication within the last year, to be determined).

Causes of action accruing before April 9, 2025

This petition addresses only the issue of permitting a late-filed claim, not the merits of the underlying factual claims against County or the issue of standing for Legacy Alliance Outreach. The Petition itself is timely because it was filed within six months of County’s denial of the Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim.

Section 946.6 demonstrates the showing necessary to overcome a public entity’s denial of an application for leave to present late claim. First, the application must be presented within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. Second, the application was denied. Third, Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to present a timely claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Gov. Code, § 946.6(c).)

The comparison to a “reasonably prudent person” is the touchstone. (Department of Water and Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App. 4^th 1288.) Actual settlement discussions involving Petitioner combined with false statements by Respondent might be enough to grant the petition. (See: Bertorelli v. City of Tulare (1986) 18 Cal.App.3d 432) But here, the evidence shows no such behavior by Respondent.

Here, Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was submitted on or about April 9, 2026. The  termination of County’s contract occurred on or about March 19, 2025, which is more than one year before the Application was submitted. “ ‘When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under . . . section 946.6.’ [Citation.] (Last Frontier Healthcare Dist. v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 492, 497.) As to any causes of action that accrued before April 9, 2025 (e.g., contract termination), the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief.

Next, County denied Petitioner’s Application to Submit a Late Claim.

The Court need not reach the mistake or excusable neglect because the Application was submitted more than one year after accrual of the cause of action, but the Court would not find excusable neglect. Petitioner argues excusable neglect because he believed the dispute was under review and would be resolved pursuant to an audit. But Petitioner presents no documentation to support his assertions that County officials represented an audit would resolve the issue informally. There is a single email with a subject line of “Audit” discussing a reconciliation process. But the email is between Legacy Alliance Outreach and an outside accounting firm. It does not discuss informal resolutions of any issues. At most, the email would relate to County’s March 2025 cancellation of the contract with Legacy Alliance Outreach, which is outside the one-year period.

Causes of action accruing after April 9, 2025

Petitioner argues that certain causes of action accrued after April 9, 2025:

(1) a May 22, 2025 correspondence from the California Board of State and Community Corrections;

(2) an October 27, 2025 publication

(3) an alleged communication by County to a prospective funder of which Petitioner became aware on January 5, 2026.

As to the May 22, 2025 correspondence, Petitioner has not shown mistake or excusable neglect for failing to submit a timely Government Claim. Petitioner argues mistake or excusable neglect because he believed the dispute was under review and would be resolved pursuant to an audit. But the attached exhibits do not support Petitioner’s assertions that County officials represented an audit would resolve the issue informally. There is a single email with a subject line of “Audit” discussing a reconciliation process. (Exhibit A to August 13, 2026 Declaration of Michael Baldwin.) But the email is between Legacy Alliance Outreach and an outside accounting firm, not the County. It does not discuss informal resolution of any issue, nor represent an ongoing audit by County.

Petitioner states that the October 27, 2025 publication “caused separate reputational injury to him individually and adversely affected his professional standing and ability to obtain future professional and economic opportunities.” (Amended Reply, at 9.) For such causes of action, Petitioner’s April 9, 2026 Application was presented within the one-year period.

In addition, Petitioner originally submitted a Government Claim to County on or about March 1, 2026, which is within six months of both October 27, 2025 and January 5, 2026. (Gov. Code, § 911.4.) Petitioner’s March 1, 2026 Government Claim was therefore timely as to those causes of action. There is no prejudice to County because the original submission of Petitioner’s Government Claim was timely.

Therefore, the Petition is GRANTED as to the causes of action that allegedly accrued on or about October 27, 2025 and on or about January 5, 2026 as those were not filed late. The Court expresses no opinion on whether these causes of action can be adequately pled.

Petitioner to file his Complaint within 30 days of entry of an order, which will be modified and signed.

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

CV-24-005247 – HOLLANDS, CORY vs ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES INC – Compliance Hearing – DROPPED.

Having reviewed and considered the declaration of the Settlement Administrator filed on September 23, 2026, the Court finds that the parties have substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. Consequently, this hearing is DROPPED.

CV-24-007060 – CITIBANK NA vs BAEZ, SUSANA VALENTE – Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ written stipulation is GRANTED under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The parties entered into a written settlement under which Defendant acknowledged an obligation consisting of $2,587.69 in principal and $296.02 in court costs, for a total stipulated “Judgment Amount” of $2,883.71. The stipulation provides that Plaintiff would refrain from entering judgment so long as Defendant timely completed the agreed payment schedule. It further provides that, on Defendant’s default, Plaintiff would be entitled to entry of judgment for the Judgment Amount, less credit for payments made.

Plaintiff’s evidence establishes that Defendant made payments totaling $2,016.00 but failed to complete the stipulated payment schedule. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to entry of judgment as follows:

        - Stipulated Judgment Amount: $2,883.71

        - Less payments and credits: $2,016.00

        - Total judgment: $867.71

Accordingly, judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. and against Defendant Susana Valente Baez in the total amount of $867.71.

The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment that were submitted with the motion.

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

CV-24-008657 – WALLACE, KEVIN ALAN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees – IN-PERSON APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Pursuant to the Court’s 9-17-26 order, counsel shall appear at the hearing in person and shall be prepared to engage in further efforts to reach a reasonable compromise of the issues herein.

CV-25-004706 – CID, HILMER DEL vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1749(D) – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 for IN-PERSON APPEARANCES.

The Court finds the parties’ Joint Status Statement insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Court’s order requiring good faith meet and confer efforts on the issues presented by this motion. Counsel shall appear in person at the time of the continued hearing and shall be prepared to engage in further efforts to reach a reasonable compromise of the issues herein at that time. In the event the parties are able to reach an informal resolution of the issues prior to the continued hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly notify the court and the hearing will be vacated.

CV-25-008532 – LANE, JEFFREY vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. D/B/A Doctors Medical Center of Modesto and D/B/A Doctors Medical Center Modesto to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further First Amended Responses from Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. D/B/A Doctors Medical Center of Modesto and D/B/A Doctors Medical Center Modesto to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Monetary Sanctions -  CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Second Amended Responses from Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. D/B/A Doctors Medical Center of Modesto and D/B/A Doctors Medical Center Modesto to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-c) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated insufficient efforts to informally resolve the issues presented herein before filing the instant motions. Plaintiff demonstrates no additional meet and confer efforts following Defendant’s service of its second set of amended responses to the subject discovery. Moreover, it appears to the Court that many, if not all, of the disputes described herein should be amenable to informal resolution if counsel makes genuine efforts to meet and confer in good faith.

Therefore, the hearings are 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 December 1, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The parties 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.) Therefore, the Court expects the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another and to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

Lastly, the parties are advised that, in view of the number of motions pending and discovery requests currently in dispute in this matter, the Court may consider the appointment of a discovery referee to manage discovery and reduce the burden on the Court and the parties if significant progress toward resolution is not demonstrated at the time of the continued hearings.

CV-26-001860 – SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC – a) Defendant Hartley Patterson, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action – OVERRULED; b) Defendant 50 Fathom Curve, LLC’s Demurrer to Amended Complaint – OVERRULED; c) Defendant Bruce Harrington’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend; d) Defendant Bruce Harrington’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint - DENIED, as MOOT.

a) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient factual support for the stated claims, including the alter ego allegations which form a substantial basis for such claims.  The Court further notes that several of Defendant’s arguments appear to turn on the evaluation of extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate on demurrer.

b) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient factual support for the stated claims, including the alter ego allegations which form a substantial basis for such claims.  The Court further notes that several of Defendant’s arguments appear to turn on the evaluation of extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate on demurrer.

c) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient factual support for the stated claims against Defendant Harrington. Specifically, the pleading fails to allege facts which, if established, would entitle Plaintiff to seek recovery from Defendant Harrington as the alter ego of the subject corporate entities.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend in this regard and shall submit its further amended pleading within 20 days.

d) The motion is MOOT, in view of the Court’s ruling on the related demurrer.

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

CV-22-004359 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs PEREZ, DESTINY – a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One as to Destiny Perez – GRANTED, unopposed; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – GRANTED, unopposed; c) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions - GRANTED, unopposed.

a) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Destiny Perez has failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One served on said Real Party in Interest on June 25, 20265 or at all without substantial justification. The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to responses to said discovery. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by said Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived. Real Party in Interest  is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection free responses to said Form Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Code of Civil Procedure §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).

Petitioner shall submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

b) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Destiny Perez failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, served on said Real Party in Interest on June 25, 2025, or at all without substantial justification.

The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to inspect all the requested documents and things listed in Petitioner’s said Request for Production, Set One. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a).

Any objections by Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.  Said Real Party in interest is ordered to identify and produce all the requested documents and things therein stated without objection and to permit Petitioner's counsel to inspect and copy said documents and things within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a) and (b).

Petitioner shall submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

c) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Destiny Perez failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on said Real Party in Interest on June 25, 2025, or at all without substantial justification.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.

Therefore, any objection to said Requests for Admission, by said Real Party In Interest including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product are hereby waived and the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in said Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 (a).

Petitioner shall submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

CV-25-008030 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SOBERANES, MARIO FELIX – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One as to Mario Felix Soberanes – GRANTED, unopposed; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Mario Felix Soberanes – GRANTED, unopposed; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions as to Mario Felix Soberanes - GRANTED, unopposed.

a) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Mario Felix Soberanes has failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One served on said Real Party in Interest on May 4, 2026, or at all without substantial justification. The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to responses to said discovery. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by said Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived. Defendant is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection free responses to said Form Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

b) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Mario Felix Soberanes failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, served on said Real Party in Interest on May 4, 2026, or at all without substantial justification.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to inspect all the requested documents and things listed in Petitioner’s said Request for Production, Set One. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a).

Any objections by Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.  Said Real Party in interest is ordered to identify and produce all the requested documents and things therein stated without objection and to permit Petitioner's counsel to inspect and copy said documents and things within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a) and (b)).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

c) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Mario Felix Soberanes failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on said Real Party in Interest on May 4, 2025, or at all without substantial justification.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.

Therefore, any objection to said Requests for Admission, by said Real Party In Interest including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product are hereby waived and the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in said Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 (a).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

CV-25-008680 – DEERE & COMPANY vs TORRES, ANGEL – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions to Defendant Angel Torres and for Sanctions - DENIED.

The court exercises its discretion to consider late filed papers and does so in this instance. (Jack v. Ring LLC, (2023); 91 Cal. App. 5th 1186; Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250 (a):"Within 30 days after service of requests for admissions, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party..."

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides that if a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to timely respond, that party waives any objections to the requests and the matters specified in the requests may be deemed admitted.

The statute has no meet and confer requirement where no responses have been served. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court, (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762).  Furthermore, there is no deadline to file a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

Defendant’s Proposed Responses are clearly untimely. Any objections to said Requests for Admissions are therefore waived.

However, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 (b) and (c) where a party moves to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted based on the lack of responses, “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Plaintiff’s Opposition is supported by a copy of his Proposed Responses.  Said responses are substantially compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, rehearing denied, review denied. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore denied.

Monetary sanctions of $260 are hereby imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this motion.

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 in Department 19***