December 5, 2025

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

CV-24-003144 – MODESTO COBBLESTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs SABBAH, ALEXANDRA – Plaintiff Modesto Cobblestone Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs – is GRANTED, and unopposed.  Pursuant to Local Rule 3.13 (1) Plaintiff is hereby awarded $1,043.50 in fees and $266.87 in costs for a total award of $1,310.57.

CV-25-001978 – 1^ST UNITED CREDIT UNION vs RODRIGUEZ, ANA B – Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted and to Compel Responses to Other Written Discovery Propounded Upon Defendant Ana B. Rodriguez and for Sanctions – DENIED without prejudice.

The address of the courtroom provided to Defendant is 1000 Main Street, Woodland, California. This is not accurate.

CV-25-008579 – WHITE, PASTOR TOMMY, JR vs CORDOVA, JOSE E JR – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declaration for an Automatic 30-Day Extension - DENIED.

The proofs of service do not indicate the First Amended Complaint was served. The Court declines to engage in a factual determination as to whether it was served; there is still no evidence before it that it was.

Further, the Court is unconvinced it would have authority if it reached the merits to strike a “pleading” under Code of Civil Procedure section 436.

In a civil action, a pleading has been defined as: "[T]he formal allegations by the parties of their respective claims and defenses, for the judgment of the court" (Muller v. Muller (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 704; Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564 .)  (Code of Civil Procedure) Section 422.10 specifies the types of pleadings allowed in civil actions, which include complaints, demurrers, answers, and cross-complaints (Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC, Id., Pine Terrace Apartments, L.P. v. Windscape, LLC (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1 ). This statutory framework establishes that pleadings are the documents used to set forth claims and defenses in litigation.

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

CV-25-002503 – WRIGHT, DAWSON vs VOLSAN, MARK – Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – OVERRULED.

Defendant Mark Volsan demurs to the complaint on the grounds that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts because it is barred by the statute of limitations. The complaint is based on an accident that occurred on March 12, 2023. According to the file-stamp on the pleading, the complaint was filed on March 17, 2025—six days after the statute of limitations expired.

In a late-filed opposition to the demurrer, Plaintiff Dawson Wright argues that he timely filed the complaint on March 11, 2025, at 2:50 pm. However, the complaint was rejected. Notification of the rejection was received by Plaintiff’s counsel on March 15, 2025 (a Saturday). The stated reason for rejection was that the proposed order for the accompanying fee waiver request had been uploaded twice.

In determining whether a pleading has been timely filed, the Court must focus on the filer’s actions. (Cf. United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 (United Farm Workers).) A clerk’s rejection for a technical defect is generally deemed an insufficient reason to view a filing as unexecuted. (See id.; cf. Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.220(c) [stating that the clerk may not reject a complaint for a missing, defective, or incomplete cover sheet].) “[I]t cannot be the rule that the timeliness of a petition depends on whether the clerk catches … technical defects. Accordingly, we conclude that ‘filing’ for purposes of compliance with the time limits … means what it does in all other contexts: actual delivery of the petition to the clerk at his place of business during office hours. [Citations.]” (United Farm Workers, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 918; see also Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270 (Carlson) [holding that a local superior court may not condition the filing of a complaint on compliance with local rules].)

Here, the complaint at issue was rejected for a tangential reason. The Court observes that, while efiling has brought many advantages, it has disadvantages as well. One such disadvantage is that filing packages are now wholly rejected for minor oversights. In this case, the clerk rejected the filing package due to the duplicate submission of an accompanying proposed order. Ideally, this rejection would not have occurred: “[S]o long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file.” (Carlson, supra; see also Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777 [“Where, as here, the defect, if any, is insubstantial, the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.”]; Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 276, 280 [holding that the court should have filed the complaint despite a missing cover sheet].)

Accordingly, the Court deems the complaint timely filed. Consequently, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant to answer within 10 days.

PR-24-001121 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MARIA GONZALEZ 2016 REVOCABLE TRUST – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel– HEARING REQUIRED. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-b)

The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions by Attorney Sarah Cullen of Geremia & Cullen PC and Attorney Michael Hackard of Hackard Law APLC to be relieved as counsel for Petitioner Victor Gonzalez. However, given the client’s opposition to the motions, the Court will give him an opportunity to be heard.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-21-003804 – SINGH, SIMARJIT vs MANN TRUCK & TRAILER REPAIR INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions, and for Monetary Sanctions - 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.4^th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Defendant Manjinder Singh Mann and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

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

CV-23-001238 – MENDEZ, REYNALDO MARCIAL vs DAVE WILSON NURSERY INC – Compliance Hearing – DROPPED. 

 The Court notes the submission of the Settlement Administrator’s declarations demonstrating compliance with the terms of the subject settlement.  Of the Amended Gross Settlement Amount of $344,196.20 Aggrieved Employees, Class Counsel, Class Representatives and Class Administrator have received their payments per said Settlement.  Payment has also been made to the LWDA per said Settlement. Uncashed checks totaling $10,488.83. shall be transmitted to the Cy -Pres recipient CASA of Stanislaus County.

 

Class Counsel shall submit an amended judgment reflecting the unclaimed amount.  

CV-23-007007 – HAMMERSTROM, BRUCE vs VASQUEZ, GEORGE – Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Codefendant Charles Duke’s Motion Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff or in the Alternative Evidentiary, Issue and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff – MOOT.

Given the Court’s ruling on Charles Duke’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions which P seeks to strike, this motion is rendered moot.

CV-23-007139 – CARDENAS, JOSE vs CALDERON, FRANK JOSEPH – Defendant Frank Joseph Calderon’s Motion to Consolidate Actions – GRANTED.

 Given that both cases at issue arise from the same accident and involve the same parties, and the parties have stipulated to consolidate same, good cause exists to grant the requested motion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Tr., (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976).

Defendants’ application is accordingly granted.

The request for Judicial Notice is also granted. (Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, and California Rule of Court 323).

Therefore, Case No.CV-23-007139, Cardenas v Calderon, and Case No. CV-24-008796 Mobarez v. Calderon are hereby ordered consolidated for all purposes including trial. Case No. CV-23-007139 Cardenas v Calderon is hereby designated the lead case.

All documents in the consolidated matter are ordered to be filed in this case, Case No. CV-23-007139 indicating its caption and case number followed by Case No. CV-23-007139.

This consolidation order is to be filed in Case No. CV-24-008796, and no further papers or documents or copies need to be filed in that action. 

All pretrial deadlines will follow the trial date for the consolidated matter. 

Plaintiffs in the above actions are hereby permitted to file a consolidated complaint within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order consolidating the cases. Defendant’s responsive deadline will correspond with the filing of the consolidated complaint.

CV-24-005909 – TORRES, MICHAEL vs GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.

Subject to clarification regarding the total estimated exposure amount herein the Court is inclined to find good cause to order as follows:

The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-5-26	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
1-16-26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-16-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
3-26-26	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines. 

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***