Civil Tentative Rulings

August 26, 2026

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

CV-22-000032 – HODGSON, KETRIN vs MOHAMAD, ABDO – Defendant Abdo Mohamad’s Motion to Compel Judgment Creditor Ketrin Hodgson to File an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment Pursuant to CCP 724.050 - MOOT, no sanctions issued.

In this case after a post-trial judgment, Plaintiff asserted she was entitled to payment of $106,608.11 plus daily interest. Defense counsel responded, “My client will have the check delivered to your office tomorrow,” then delivered a check for just over $101,000. Defense counsel asserted the further attorney fees were not due after delivering the check and being questioned on it.

Plaintiff cashed the check on April 21 of this year. Defendant filed this motion on June 12, 2026. Plaintiff filed a full satisfaction of judgment on June 23, 2026, mooting the dispute over the amount owed.

Under these circumstances, the Court declines to issue sanctions. The response that the check was on its way without noting a contest on the amount makes the claim that this judgment was plainly satisfied unclear at best. The fact that further efforts to collect the remaining amount were not made is not dispositive.

CV-23-007501 – WELLS FARGO BANK vs LOPEZ, EDGAR PEREZ – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under C.C.P. 664.6 & Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed.

Plaintiff's unopposed motion to enforce the parties' written settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is GRANTED as to the unpaid settlement balance. The parties executed a written stipulation authorizing entry of judgment in the event of default, and the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration establishing that Defendant defaulted under the settlement agreement and that $3,000 remains unpaid. No opposition has been filed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the principal amount of $3,000.00.

Costs

Plaintiff also seeks an award of $300 in costs. However, Plaintiff did not file a memorandum of costs as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1). Therefore, the Court cannot ascertain whether the costs requested are proper and recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and Local Rule 3.13. (Cf. Judicial Council form CIV-100, “Request for Entry of Default” at Item 7 [requiring a memorandum of costs if a money judgment is requested].)

CV-24-000143 – DHANOTA, RITA vs NUCOR BUILDINGS GROUP WEST LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and Paga Settlement Agreement – GRANTED.

This is a wage and hour case.

It appears that proper notice to the settlement class has been given in compliance with the law and as required by the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval. The Settlement Administrator mailed notice to all 297 class members, conducted address updates through NCOA, performed skip tracing on returned notices, remailed notices when updated addresses were obtained, and reports that no class member requested exclusion, objected to the settlement, or challenged workweek or PAGA pay period calculations. The Court therefore finds that notice was the best practicable under the circumstances and satisfied due process requirements.

Having considered the unopposed motion and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civ. Code § 1781; Code Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.)

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed Settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as follows:

        - Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator (Apex Class Action, LLC): $8,500.00;

        - Payment to Class Representative Rita Dhanota: $10,000.00;

        - PAGA allocation: $40,000.00, consisting of $30,000.00 (75%) payable to the LWDA and $10,000.00 (25%) payable to aggrieved employees;

        - Class Counsel's attorneys' fees: $171,666.67;

        - Class Counsel's litigation costs: $19,487.51.

In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384(b), the Court SETS a compliance hearing for April 23, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 to confirm full administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall file a compliance report no later than five court days before the hearing, including the total amount actually distributed to participating class members and aggrieved employees and identifying any uncashed settlement checks.

The Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.771(b).)

The current proposed order contains findings and provisions that were not expressly requested in the notice of motion and motion. In addition, it omits provisions regarding the compliance hearing and amended judgment contemplated by the Settlement and this ruling. Accordingly, Class Counsel is ordered to submit a revised proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

CV-25-011622 – MENDEZ, ERNESTO A vs GORDON, STEVEN – Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus – JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED.

The Department of Motor Vehicles appears correct in what is essentially a motion to tax costs. No provision for attorney fees is cited by Petitioner, and no specific fees incurred are outlined. Further, Respondent is correct about the legal rules governing the exhibit costs.

CV-26-000861 – CASTRO, VINCENT vs ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC – Defendant Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Individual and Individual Paga Claims, Strike Punitive Class Claims and Stay Non-Individual Paga Claims Pending Arbitration – CONTINUED to September 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

The Court needs additional time to review the pleadings and issue a proper statement of decision. I apologize for the delay.

CV-26-004874 – ANHAR, MICHAEL N vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Petitioner’s Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED.

The parties should come prepared with a proposed briefing schedule on all cases, or prepared to discuss a briefing schedule.

CV-26-006052 – BALDWIN, MICHAEL vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Petition for Relief from Government Code 945.4 Pursuant to Government Code 946.6 - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs the parties’ assistance on some issues.

First, the Court is likely to grant the County additional time to respond to the new evidence in reply rather than strike the additional evidence. The Court may also set an evidentiary hearing if the parties so request.

Second, it appears the County concedes that defamation claims based on the article cited would not be time-barred.

Third, the Court will need more clarity from Plaintiff as to his position on the standing issue as to losses to the company, which is not a party.

CV-26-006516 – ANHAR, MICHAEL N vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Petitioner’s Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

The parties should come prepared with a proposed briefing schedule on all cases, or prepared to discuss a briefing schedule.

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

PR-26-000073 – IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST – a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent –  CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The Court has reviewed Petitioner's supplemental declarations filed on August 17, 2026, which substantially narrow the motions. The Court finds the parties have made meaningful progress in narrowing the issues but that further targeted meet-and-confer efforts may resolve some or all of the remaining disputes without the need for formal Court intervention.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES these motions to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

No later than September 14, 2026, counsel and the self-represented Petitioner shall meet and confer in person or by videoconference regarding Requests for Production Nos. 4, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 19 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 24, 25, and 26. Respondent shall advise whether additional responsive documents exist, whether all responsive documents have already been produced, and whether any supplementation can be provided voluntarily.

The parties shall file and serve by September 24, 2026, a joint status report, or separate status reports if necessary, identifying which requests remain in dispute and the specific issues remaining for Court determination.

The Court reserves ruling on the merits of these motions pending completion of these additional meet-and-confer efforts.

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

CV-21-003098 – MARTINEZ, SERGIO vs MALHI, SURJIT SINGH – Plaintiff’s Motion to 1. Vacate Judgment as to R Millennium Transport Inc. Only; and 2. Amend Judgment to Reflect Continuing Validity Against Surjit Singh Malhi –

GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-008809 – TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC –  a) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; e) Defendant Clear Capital’s Motion to Phase Discovery to Address Plaintiff’s Standing and Individual Claims First - HEARING REQUIRED; f) Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC’s Motion to Sequence Discovery - HEARING REQUIRED;

a-f) HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel shall appear to discuss any remaining issues before entry of the Court’s order appointing a discovery referee in this matter.

With regard to Plaintiffs’ claimed financial inability in connection with the referee’s fees, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted insufficient evidence on this issue.  In addition, based on the discussions between counsel, as reflected in email correspondence submitted by Defendants, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to share in the fees of their counsel’s preferred referee, Judge Morrow, who charges only 5% less than Judge Massullo in this regard.

Therefore, the Court intends to enter an order confirming the appointment of Judge Massullo, with the requisite fees to be shared equally between the respective parties to each referred dispute.

CV-26-003818 – ASSALI, JANNETTE vs REED, JAMES – Defendant’s Motion to Strike Claims for Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint - GRANTED, with leave to amend.

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code § 3294 and must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support the claim. (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1192–1193.)

Here, the Court notes Plaintiff’s inclusion of specific factual allegations regarding the defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s history of multiple prior attacks, which appear sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages herein. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege the proper statutory elements to seek such damages. Specifically, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleges only that the defendants’ conduct was reckless in connection with the subject incident, and recklessness alone is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (Taylor v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.)

Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

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

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

a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Alexander Ortiz

Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things were served upon Real Party in Interest Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to the Requests for Inspection, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived.

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) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One

Petitioner has demonstrated that Form Interrogatories, Set One, were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived.

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) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions as to Alexander Ortiz

Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Admissions were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

As a result, the truth of the matters specified in Petitioner's Requests for Admissions is deemed admitted.

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. Petitioner is then required to serve a copy of the signed order on Alexander Ortiz.

CV-23-006045 – RHOADS, FINNICK vs MCCANTS, BARBARA – Defendant Barbara Mccants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as MOOT, and unopposed.

As to Issue One, Defendant has met her initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue regarding her knowledge of dangerous propensities. Defendant established that she had no safety concerns regarding her dog, “General,” before the incident (SUF No. 5), had never observed General behave aggressively (SUF No. 6), was unaware of any prior biting incidents (SUF No. 7), and knew only of behavior she described as playful "flea biting" (SUF No. 8). Defendant's evidence therefore negates an essential element of the strict-liability claim. No opposition was filed and no evidence was presented creating a triable issue of material fact. Summary adjudication of the second cause of action is therefore GRANTED.

As to Issues Two, Three, and Four, Defendant's reply acknowledges that the claims of Harold Rhoads, Riley Rhoads, and Sarah Rhoads have been resolved and are moot in light of their dismissal from the action. Accordingly, Issues Two, Three, and Four are DENIED as MOOT.

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

 

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