March 11, 2025

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 21***

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

CV-24-001586 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs GOODWIN, DERRICK – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – DENIED without prejudice; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One – DENIED without prejudice; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions - DENIED without prejudice.

a-c) The motions to compel are DENIED without prejudice due to defects in proofs of service. Specifically, there are no proofs of service showing service of the discovery requests at issue. While paragraph 3 of each of the supporting declarations states that the discovery requests at issue were mailed on August 26, 2024, the lack of standard proofs of service means the Court cannot verify who sent the documents, from where they were mailed, or to what address they were mailed. The Court also needs confirmation of the address of the Claimant/Respondent at the time of service, as it appears that he was incarcerated at least for a time after the probation search that resulted in the seizure of the property at issue. In addition, the Court notes that paragraph 3 of the declaration filed in support of the motion to compel responses to requests for production misidentifies the real party-in-interest, which renders the assertion regarding discovery service ineffective.

More fundamentally, Health & Safety Code § 11488.4(c) requires a district attorney to “make service of process” for the forfeiture petition “upon every individual designated in a receipt issued for the property seized.” Here, papers in the court file indicate that the Claimant/Respondent was served with the petition by mail, together with a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt form. Service by acknowledgment is not complete until a signed acknowledgement form has been filed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) But the Court was unable to locate a signed form in the court file. Without establishing that the petition was properly served, the Court cannot make a valid order compelling responses to discovery.

PR-21-001379 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MARY JESSIE SWANSON REVOCABLE TRUST – Motion to Reconsider California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 - CONTINUED to March 27, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

An opposition to this motion was untimely served on March 6, 2025, and late-filed on March 7, 2025, as opposed to being filed nine court days before the hearing date and served electronically eleven court days before pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1005(b) and 1010.6(a)(2)(B). To give the Moving Party an opportunity to review and timely reply to the opposition, the Court CONTINUES this matter to March 27, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The reply is due five court days before the continued hearing date. And the Court trusts that the opposing party will be more mindful of procedural deadlines in the future; should this situation occur again, the Court may disregard the untimely filing

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-24-003523 – MADRIGAL, ANITA vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Plaintiff Anita Madrigal's Motion to Quash Defendant City of Waterford's Subpoena, or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order Limiting the Subpoena, from the Following Providers: Kaiser Central Valley, Kaiser Central Valley Radiology Department, Kaiser Courtesy Statement; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,090.00 Against Defendant City of Waterford and its Attorney of Record Attorney Bradley J. Swingle, Esq and Swingle, Van Egmond & Heitlinger a Professional Law Corporation – Motion to Quash DENIED; Motion for Protective Order GRANTED.

It appears to the Court that the parties are essentially in agreement that the scope of the records produced in connection with the subject subpoenas should be limited to those reflecting conditions involving the body parts identified by Plaintiff in this action. In addition, the defense has expressed willingness to limit the time period for materials obtained under the subpoena to reflect only those from the date of injury forward.

Therefore, the Court finds that a protective order is necessary to preserve these qualifications on the subject subpoenas and the handling thereof. In that regard, the Court finds that the subpoenas shall be modified to request only materials dating from 5-25-23 forward; these materials shall be produced first to Plaintiff’s counsel, who will perform an initial review in order to identify the materials which meet the criteria for production as to condition/body part limitations.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a detailed privilege log with regard to all redacted information; the privilege log shall contain sufficient factual information to allow defense counsel to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that such materials fall outside the scope of relevant information. The relevant records and the detailed privilege log shall be produced to defense counsel within 30 days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the records.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

CV-24-005882 – BANK OF AMERICA NA vs RODRIGUEZ, EYMI SOTO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - 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 will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

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

CV-23-000648 – MARDIKIAN, GEORGE vs DOLE, MATTHEW – Defendants’ Motion to Compel Property Inspection – DENIED.

The Court notes, as a preliminary matter, that Defendants have not acted expeditiously herein regarding discovery given the two (2) trial continuances herein obtained.

The Court finds that Defendants’ Notice of Inspection did not provide the required thirty days’ notice, and that said failure was occasioned by Defendants’ noted failure to act expeditiously. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.030).

The Court also finds that a Motion to Compel Inspection must be preceded by responses to a Notice of Demand for Inspection.  (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.310 (b) (2); Code 2031.210 (a)).  Furthermore, typically meet and confer regarding said Motion to Compel Inspection occurs following receipt of the responding parties’ responses. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040).  However, given the substantial meet and confer between Counsel preceding service of the Notice of Inspection herein, Plaintiff’s consistent position regarding said inspection and the impending discovery cut off, the Court finds that further meet and confer further would likely not have been productive, and the Court exercises its discretion to entertain Defendants’ present motion.

The Court further finds, given Defendants’ prior admission of liability regarding the asserted tree damage to Plaintiff’s property, Defendants have not established good cause for the requested inspection. (Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Exh. I, and Safeco Insurance Company’s Letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel, Exh. J).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for issue sanctions are hereby granted. Therefore, the designated facts listed as numbers 1-6 in Plaintiff’s Opposition hereto shall be taken as established in this action. (Code of Civil Procedure§§ 2023.010 and 2023.030(b)).

Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions of $1,600 for the reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in opposing this motion.  (Code of Civil Procedure§§ 2023.010. 2023.030(a))

CV-23-007522 – AZTLAN SECURITY SERVICES INC vs MEDALION WELLNESS INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Propounded to Defendant, Medallion Wellness, Inc., Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Propounded to Defendant, Michael Sean O’Leary, Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Propounded to Defendant, Accolade Management, LLC, Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Defendant Medallion Wellness has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One served on them on September 11, 2024, without substantial justification.

The Court hereby orders that the truth of the matters specified in Numbers 1 to 8 of said Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted.  (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.250 (a);2033.280).

b) The Court finds that Defendant Michael Sean O’ Leary has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One served on him on September 11, 2024, without substantial justification.

The Court hereby orders that the truth of the matters specified in Numbers 1 to 8 of said Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted.  (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.250 (a);2033.280).

c) The Court finds that Defendant Accolade Management LLC has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One served on them on September 11, 2024, without substantial justification.

The Court hereby orders that the truth of the matters specified in Numbers 1 to 8 of said Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted.  (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.250 (a);2033.280).

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***