Civil Tentative Rulings

June 25, 2026

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

CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Defendant's Motion Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED.

a-d) The Court has questions about the timeliness of the instant motions, which may adversely impact the Court’s jurisdiction to hear them.  Proof of service indicates Plaintiff’s verified responses to each of the discovery requests were electronically served on 1-26-26, yet notice of the instant motions was not provided until 4-22-26, which exceeds the 45-day deadline provided in Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).  The Court finds no indication in the evidence that the parties agreed to extend the subject deadline and does not believe a stay was in effect.

Even if served on February 27, 2026 as alleged by Defendant, the 45 days would have run.

On March 17, 2026, the Court explicitly stated the due date for the motion to compel was April 15, 2026. Discussions between the parties do not appear to have extended this date but I may be mistaken or be unaware of other facts.

If I were to reach the merits, I note that Plaintiff has expressly placed his mental health conditions at issue.

CV-26-005622 - IN THE MATTER OF VILLAVICENCIO, ELI M - Petitioner's Petition for Order Authorizing Transfer of Minor's Interest in Real Property - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions as to whether Probate Court has jurisdiction under Probate Code section 851. Further, the minor likely is required to have counsel.

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

CV-19-001959 - DAMPIER, WILLIE LEE, Sr vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED.

On May 12, 2026, the Settlement Administrator submitted a supplemental declaration stating that there were 465 uncashed checks totaling $41,967.87 that remained uncashed after the deadline. The uncashed check funds in the amount of $41,967.87 were sent to the State Controller’s Office – Unclaimed Property Fund in the names of the respective class members on March 23, 2026.

On May 21, 2026, the Court signed the Amended Order and Judgment. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 384.5, the court directs the clerk to transmit a copy of the amended judgment along with the original judgment to the Judicial Council for completion of the report required by Section 68520 of the Government Code.

As it appears that all payment obligations regarding the settlement agreement have now been fulfilled, the compliance hearing is DROPPED.

CV-26-003505 - TOVAR, MARK A vs FCA US LLC - Defendant's FCA US LLC and Razzari Chrysler Dodge Jeep Rams' Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff - GRANTED, and unopposed.

On May 27, 2026, Defendants submitted a motion to compel deposition of plaintiff. The motion is unopposed.

The deposition of Plaintiff in this lemon law case was first noticed for January 5, 2026. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel were not available and asked to reschedule. Despite numerous follow-ups from Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to provide a date certain for the deposition. Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition via Zoom. Defendants propose providing to Plaintiff two dates and times within 15 days of the notice of the order on the instant motion, from which Plaintiff will choose one.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendants submitted in connection with the instant motion.

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; c) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; d) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.

a) Requests for Production

The Court notes that the separate statement for this motion was not fully compliant with rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court because it grouped the requests for production and did not quote the requests and the responses verbatim. Nonetheless, to the extent that the tardy responses contained objections or were otherwise not fully code-compliant, the motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party.

Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko.

Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

b) Form Interrogatories

Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party.

Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko.

Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

c) Special Interrogatories

Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party.

Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko.

Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

d) Requests for Admissions

Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.

With regard to the requests numbered above 35, although the number of requests exceeds the statutory limit and there was apparently no declaration of necessity, any objection to the excessive number of requests and the lack of a declaration was waived due to the fact that responses were not timely served. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030(b).)

Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party.

Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko.

Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

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

CV-24-010698 - SANTIBANEZ, RAYMOND vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Defendant State of California Department of Transportation's Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted and Requests for Mandatory Sanctions - DENIED, in part, as MOOT; GRANTED, in part, as to sanctions.

The request for an order deeming matters admitted is DENIED, based on Plaintiff’s provision of substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

However, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct which necessitated the motion. (Ibid.) Therefore, Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, Jakrun Sodhi, in the amount of $228, payable to defense counsel.

CV-25-006137 - HOEY, ERIC vs ESMAILI, EDWARD - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Edward Esmaili and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Crime Guard, Inc. and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Defendant Nirmal Mann and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

b) The Court finds that Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Defendant Crime Guard, Inc. and its attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

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

CV-24-003753 - COOPER, LORI vs ROCK STAR LUXURY LIMOS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Verification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date -  GRANTED.

 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds 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:

7-3-26	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
7-17- 26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
9-18-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
10-2-26	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval Declaration of Class Administrator

 

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 27, 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.

CV-25-009148 - PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED.

It is not clear to the Court from the parties’ Joint Status Statement precisely which requests in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Set One, remain outstanding following further meet and confer. The Court requires clarification on the matter.

CV-26-000462 - CASAREZ, ENRIQUE vs WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC - a) Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint - OVERRULED, in part, SUSTAINED, in part; b) Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint - GRANTED, without prejudice.  

a) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Defendant’s failure to file his mandatory Demurrer pleading and to state the grounds on which the demurrer is brought, permitting the Court to disregard same. (Code of Civil Procedure § 430.60; See also Rutter Guide - A. Demurrers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A) and CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1112 and Rule 3.1320). However, the Court exercises its discretion to consider same. (McAllister v. Cnty. of Monterey, (2007)147 Cal. App. 4th 253). Nevertheless, Counsel is cautioned to observe the above listed procedural requirements in connection with future submissions.

 

Where a doctor obtains consent of the patient to perform one type of treatment and subsequently performs a substantially different treatment for which consent was not obtained, there is a clear case of battery. (Piedra v. Dugan, (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1483, In the medical context, battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented. (Piedra v. Dugan, supra). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he consented to a tooth extraction, but that Defendant used excessive force for said extraction. This does not meet the lack of consent requirement for this cause of action. However, Plaintiff alleges consent to a bone graft procedure procured by fraud. The allegations as to fraud are contained in Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit which Defendant did not demur to, justifying the conclusion that said Third Cause of Action is well pled.

 

Fraud vitiates consent or renders the agreement procured by the fraud voidable.  (Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp., (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 394). Elimination of Plaintiff’s consent to the bone graft procedure based on the alleged fraud renders Defendant’s touching for said procedure harmful or offensive and meets the elements for the battery cause of action. Notably, Courts may affirm the sustaining of a demurrer only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., (2009)45 Cal. 4th 992).

 

Civil Procedure Code section 354’s inclusion of “An act of torture, as described in Section 206 of the Penal Code” in the list of the causes of action with a ten year statute of limitations indicates a separate category of tort action warranting special treatment and demonstrates legislative recognition of some overlap between battery and torture under circumstances where said conduct would also amount to torture. (Civ. Proc. Code § 354.8; Penal Code § 206).  Plaintiff, however, fails to allege great bodily injury from the bone graft procedure or from the two molars allegedly removed without clinical justification that would meet the requirements of Penal Code § 206).

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is overruled. Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Causes of Action is sustained with leave to amend.

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint filed in this matter to the exclusion of the truth of disputed factual assertions or hearsay statements contained therein. (Evidence Code § 452)

b) Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint herein clearly arise out of “the professional negligence” of Defendants as “healthcare provider[s] to Plaintiff. (Civ. Proc. Code § 425.13). Whenever an injured party seeks punitive damages for an injury that is directly related to the professional services provided by a health care provider acting in its capacity as such, the statute governing punitive damages for claims arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider applies  (Divino Plastic Surgery, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 293 Cal.Rptr.3d 47, modified on denial of rehearing; Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744; United W. Med. Centers v. Superior Ct., (1996 42 Cal. App. 4th 500,), as modified (Feb. 26, 1996). Defendants only had the opportunity to handle Plaintiff’s teeth because Plaintiff came to Defendants for medical treatment.

Accordingly dental treatment is covered by the provisions of Civ. Proc. Code § 425.13. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744; United W. Med. Centers v. Superior Ct., (1996 42 Cal. App. 4th 500,), as modified (Feb. 26, 1996).

 

Furthermore, identifying a cause of action as an intentional tort as opposed to negligence does not itself remove the claim from the requirements of the statute governing punitive damages for claims arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider.   (Divino Plastic Surgery, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra; Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004), 120 Cal.App.4th 426; Cooper v Superior Court, supra). Therefore, Plaintiff’s medical battery claim would also be subject to the provisions of Civ. Proc. Code § 425.13.

 

The Court notes Plaintiff’s reliance on Bommareddy v. Superior Ct., noting that it has been disapproved of by Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Ct. and that a long line of cases since Bonmareddy, including the aforementioned, align with the Central Pathology decision.( Bommareddy v. Superior Ct.,  (1990), 222 Cal. App. 3d 1017, disapproved of by Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1992). 3 Cal. 4th 181).

 

Plaintiff has not obtained leave under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13 to plead punitive damages in this action arising out of the professional services of a health care provider. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted.  (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 435 and 436). All punitive-damages allegations identified in this motion and the punitive-damages prayer are hereby stricken without prejudice.

 

Plaintiff may file and serve a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13 within 30 days of service of this Order.

 

The Court does not reach the ultimate sufficiency of the punitive allegations under Civil Code § 3294 at this time.

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint filed in this matter to the exclusion of the truth of disputed factual assertions or hearsay statements contained therein. (Evidence Code § 452)

 

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five court days that complies with this ruling.

CV-26-002293 - NENEF, DANIEL vs NARAYAN, SHAREENA DEVI - Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

The Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001 used by Plaintiff is for Personal Injury, Property Damage or Wrongful Death claims. The Complaint does not allege any facts supporting any such causes of action.

Furthermore, a complaint must contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1)). The Complaint is unsupported by any pleadings which meet this requirement or the general California notice pleading requirement. The purported exhibits to the Complaint also do not constitute the required statement of facts. (Thomas v. Regents of Univ. of California, (2023), 97 Cal. App. 5th 587, reh'g denied (Dec. 29, 2023), review denied (Feb. 28, 2024)

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state any facts supporting the selected Motor Vehicle cause of action and is uncertain. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)and (f)).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby sustained, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order.

The Case Management Conference set for July 6, 2026, is vacated and reset to October 19, 2026, at 8:30am in Department 24 of this Court.

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***