Civil Tentative Rulings

June 11, 2026

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

CV-23-001402 – MARQUEZ, CESAR JIMENEZ vs GONZALEZ & CASAS FLC CORP – Motion to Enforce Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.

No motion was filed and the Court needs the parties’ assistance.

CV-25-003684 – KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Ulysses Aguilar’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant Ulysses Aguilar 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 Special 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 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Ulysses Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

CV-25-011622 – MENDEZ, ERNESTO A vs GORDON, STEVEN – Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus – HEARING REQUIRED.

At the conclusion of the last hearing, some discovery issues remained outstanding.

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

CV-25-007586 – CAPITAL ONE NA vs AYME, CONSUELO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the truth of facts specified be deemed admitted.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

CV-25-012731 – ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN – a) Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal – DENIED. b) Defendant’s Demurrer – OVERRULED.

a-b) On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action by submitting a verified complaint for partition by sale of real property and for declaratory relief. Plaintiff attached a March 22, 2007, grant deed which shows that Defendant added Plaintiff to the deed while the parties were not married. The summons and complaint were served on January 11, 2026.

On February 13, 2026, Defendant, acting in pro per, submitted a verified answer and cross complaint.

On May 8, 2026, Defendant submitted a motion to dismiss and a separate demurrer. On May 15, 2026, Defendant submitted a declaration in support of his motion to dismiss. In large part, Defendant argues, inter alia, that he purchased the home before the parties were married, that he added Plaintiff to the deed for convenience only, that Plaintiff never contributed to the home, and that the home was not listed as a community property asset in the divorce settlement. On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff submitted opposition briefs. On June 5, 2026, Defendant submitted a reply brief.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is procedurally defective. A party seeking to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint must do so by demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10; 430.30(a).) Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Defendant’s demurrer is procedurally defective. A demurrer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.40(a).) Here, the Defendant was served on January 11, 2026 but did not submit the demurrer until four months later on May 8, 2026. The demurrer is untimely. The demurer also fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a), which requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) Here, there was no meet and confer. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

PR-24-000599 – Estate of ALBANO, GEORGETTE ARLENE – Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice.

The motion is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service in the court file showing service of the papers on the client and all parties who have appeared in the matter (including creditors) as required by rules 3.1300(c) and 3.1362(d) of the California Rules of Court. In addition, the Court requires notice to the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate as set forth in Item 8 of the petition for probate.

Because the motion is procedurally defective, it is DENIED without prejudice.

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

CV-23-007641 – KHINOO, JANICE DENYSE vs ASPIRANET – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only – GRANTED, and unopposed.

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

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  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:

7-13-26  Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
 

7-27-26  Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.

9-10-26  Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds

10-23-26 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for November 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-25-004778 – MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs MOUNTAIN VIEW HARVESTING LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Party Prevailing on Contract and to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees Awardable as Item of Costs – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civ. Code § 1717.  Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds that the time expended and the hourly fees claimed are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover to $8,927.50 in attorney’s fees from Defendant Sing herein.

The Court notes that the total amount of fees described in the moving papers differs from the total reflected in the billing documentation attached to counsel’s declaration in support of the motion. However, as it appears the correct amount is reflected in the proposed order, the Court will sign the order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-005435 – In re 517 FORT HENRY DRIVE MODESTO CA 95354 – a) Petitioner’s Petition Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale – DENIED. b) Claimant’s Motion for Claim of Surplus Funds – DENIED.

a-b) After review of the supplemental submissions of the parties relative to the Court’s proposed judicial notice of the existence of a prior probate proceeding and related documents which may affect the distribution of the subject funds, the Court determines to take judicial notice of the probate proceeding (PR23-919), the existence of the will, and the creditor’s claim filed therein. (Evid. Code § 455; Estate of Russell (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 758, 765–766; Pike v. Archibald (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 114, 117.)

As a result, the Court finds that the instant matters are not appropriate for adjudication at this time, as it appears the parties need to pursue the matter in a probate proceeding in order to ensure proper handling of the funds in accordance with the law and the applicable legal instrument (will).  The subject funds will remain on deposit with the court until such time as the probate division adjudicates the matter.

CV-25-009663 – CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY vs OMARI, AHMAD RESHAD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Discharge & Dismiss Stakeholder Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 386(B); 386.5 – DENIED, without prejudice.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate service of the moving papers on Defendant Singh. In addition, it appears Plaintiff failed to submit the supporting memorandum for the Court’s consideration. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1112(a).)

CV-25-011109 – DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD – Defendant Robert J. Altman M.D.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

The Court finds that the pleading is deficient as against Dr. Altman due to misjoinder of multiple plaintiffs who fail to allege facts describing the same transaction, occurrence, or a related series of acts within the parameters established by Code Civ. Proc. § 378. (Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826.)

Moreover, based on the nature of the facts alleged and in light of the controlling case authority, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to amend the allegations to satisfy the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 378 in this instance. Therefore, leave to amend is denied, and Plaintiffs are required to pursue their claims against Dr. Altman separately.

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

CV-24-002332 – CASTRO, MICHAEL ANDREW vs MUSCARELLA, STEVEN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only – GRANTED.

The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the proposed class and representative action settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for purposes of preliminary approval.

Specifically, the Court finds:

1. The proposed settlement is the result of arm’s‑length negotiations conducted with the assistance of an experienced mediator, following sufficient investigation and informal discovery to permit counsel to reasonably evaluate the strengths and risks of the claims.
2. The proposed Settlement Class is appropriately defined for settlement purposes only, and provisional certification is warranted.
3. Plaintiff is an adequate Class Representative, and proposed Class Counsel are experienced and adequate to represent the interests of the Settlement Class.
4. The Gross Settlement Amount of $365,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, settlement administration expenses, service award, and PAGA penalties, is reasonable in light of the alleged claims, the risks of continued litigation, and the anticipated recovery to class members.
5. The proposed allocation of PAGA penalties complies with statutory requirements, and Plaintiff has provided notice of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
6. The proposed notice plan, notice forms, and claims administration procedures appear to satisfy due process and the requirements of the California Rules of Court.
7. The proposed order accurately reflects the material terms of the settlement and the procedures for notice, objections, opt‑outs, and final approval.

Accordingly, the Court:

• Preliminarily approves the settlement for purposes of notice and final approval.
• Provisionally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only.
• Appoints Plaintiff as Class Representative and Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel.
• Approves the proposed Class Notice and notice dissemination plan.
• Appoints Apex Class Action Administration as Settlement Administrator.
• Sets deadlines and procedures for notice, objections, exclusions, and challenges as set forth in the proposed order.

A Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for: October 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

Plaintiff shall file the motion for final approval, along with all supporting papers, including the administrator’s declaration, by the deadline specified in the order granting preliminary approval.

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 – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, for further meet and confer.

This is a Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“lemon law”) action. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for production, contending the responses are incomplete and consist largely of objections. Defendant opposes the motion and represents that it has engaged in meet‑and‑confer efforts and that additional discussions may further narrow or resolve the remaining disputes.

Based on the papers submitted, it appears there is a reasonable possibility that additional good‑faith meet‑and‑confer efforts may resolve or significantly narrow further discovery issues, particularly given the nature of lemon law discovery, which frequently involves standardized categories of documents (e.g., repair records, warranty information, and communications) that may be amenable to clarification or supplementation without court intervention.

Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is continued to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer further in good faith during the continuance. No later than June 22, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.

The Court reminds counsel that discovery is intended to be self‑executing and that meaningful meet‑and‑confer efforts require serious attempts at informal resolution, not mere exchange of adversarial correspondence. No ruling is made at this time on the merits of the motion or any request for sanctions.

CV-26-002704 – CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration – Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is GRANTED.

Defendants have met their burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Although Plaintiff denies signing the arbitration agreement, Defendants submitted competent evidence explaining the electronic onboarding process, including the use of a secure portal requiring a unique username and password, and showing Plaintiff electronically executed multiple onboarding documents on the same date. This evidence is sufficient to authenticate Plaintiff’s electronic signature and distinguish this case from those in which arbitration was denied for lack of attribution. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.)

Plaintiff’s procedural objections regarding timeliness and claimed extensions do not warrant denial of the motion. The motion was noticed and briefed in compliance with applicable rules, and there is no showing of waiver.

The action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. Evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as not material to the Court’s ruling.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case 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 for Department 19***