Civil Tentative Rulings

October 29, 2026

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

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, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court’s order of dismissal dated September 26, 2024, is hereby VACATED. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $3,300.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment.

On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6. There is no opposition in the Court file.

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a).)

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)

“In order to take advantage of the statute’s expedited procedure, a party must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

The parties entered written stipulation in September 2024 that is signed by both parties. The total settlement amount in this collections case was $7,817.58. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Defendant was to make installment payments on a month basis from September 20, 2024, to February 20, 2027. As of the date of the motion, Defendant made payments totaling only $4,817.58. The outstanding amount is $3,000.00. Plaintiff also seeks $300.00 in costs for filing fees ($225.00) and service of process ($75.00).

Pursuant to the parties’ September 2024 Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and having considered Plaintiff’s motion and declaration, the Court finds that Defendant is in default. Plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding sum of $3,000.00 and costs of $300.00.

CV-24-000513 - GOMES, RAYMOND vs TURLOCK SCAVENGER COMPANY - Final Approval - HEARING REQUIRED, and unopposed.

The Court will grant the motion if no opposition is voiced at the hearing. If this motion is granted, the Court will modify and sign the proposed order. The Court has reduced the requested amount of costs by $56.04 because postage is not allowable as a cost. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.)

On October 7, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement. There is no opposition in the Court file.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pleads eight causes of action on behalf of putative classes, subclasses, and aggrieved employees under PAGA, including claims for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, improper sick pay calculations, inaccurate wage statements, untimely payment of final wages, unfair competition, and civil penalties under PAGA.

Having considered the unopposed motion herein and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civil 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 set forth below:

Gross settlement amount: $750,000.00;

Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees: $250,000.00;

Class Counsel’s costs: $20,576.70;

Payment to Class Representative: $5,000.00;

Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $6,190.00;

PAGA allocation to LWDA (75%) and class members (25%): $20,000. ($15,000 LWDA, $5,000 to class members.)

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 384 and pursuant to the suggestion in the proposed order, the Court SETS a compliance hearing for June 29, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to confirm full administration of the settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall submit a compliance report no later than nine days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement and the remaining amount of unclaimed funds.

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).)

 

CV-24-005547 - VALENZUELA, MARIA G vs GUTIERREZ, VELIA - Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs - GRANTED in the reduced amount of $15,433.50, and unopposed.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99(a), the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $15,433.50.

On September 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(e), Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99(a), and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702. There is no opposition in the Court file.

Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,483.50 and reasonable expenses in the amount of $215.00.

“[A] plaintiff seeking an award of attorney fees from a defaulting defendant must request those fees at the time the plaintiff requests entry of default.” (Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1480; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) “[A] party seeking entry of a default judgment must apply for all of the relief sought—including attorney fees—when application is made for entry of default.” (Garcia, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at 1479.)

On August 4, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a request for court judgment and checked Item 5, declaration for entry of default. On August 10, 2026, the Court signed the judgment, which indicated court judgment by default. Plaintiff did not include attorneys’ fees on either form. Costs were requested and awarded in the amount of $855.00. It is unclear why Plaintiff did not include the $175.00 attorney service charge for the February 20, 2026 hearing and $40.00 expert repair estimate fee in the prior cost calculation and the Court does not award them.

Plaintiff alternatively seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99(a).

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction against a drafting party that materially breaches an arbitration agreement pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1281.97 or subdivision (a) of Section 1281.98, by ordering the drafting party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.99(a).) When a defendant materially breaches an arbitration agreement by failing to pay the arbitrator’s invoice, sanctions are mandatory. (O'Dell v. Aya Healthcare, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2024) 753 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1160.)

Here, Defendant breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the invoice.

“[T]he reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community.” (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1157.) The hourly rates that Defendant seeks in the instant motion exceed the local rates. Ms. Sadr’s rate is modified to $500.00 per hour and Ms. Heydari’s to $400.00 per hour.

The Court finds a total amount of $15,433.50 in attorneys’ fees to be reasonable for the instant case.

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

CV-26-001469 - AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT - a) Defendants CCTMO LLC and T-Mobile West Tower LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Aarza Group Inc. - OVERRULED; b) Defendants, Robert Martin & Martin Group LLC’s Motion for Joinder in Co-Defendant CCTMO LLC and T-Mobile West Tower's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED.

a-b) Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED. The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient factual support for the stated causes of actions at the pleading stage.

CV-26-003882 - PADILLA, JOHN PAUL vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding - GRANTED.

The Court finds that the instant action (CV26-3882) and the related PAGA Action (CV26-6441) involve common questions of law and fact, as well as related parties and issues.  Consolidation for all purposes will avoid duplication and unnecessary costs and will promote the interests of judicial economy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)

The controlling case number will be #CV26-3882. All further papers/pleadings shall be filed under the controlling case number.  In addition, the Court sets the following hearings in the consolidated matter:

The Case Management Conference presently set for November 9, 2026 in both cases shall proceed on that date in Department 22 for the consolidated cases. The CMC set in #CV26-6441 in Department 23 on that date shall be vacated.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration shall be heard in both actions on December 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

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

CV-23-005517 - ASSYRIAN AMERICAN CIVIC CLUB EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION vs TURLOCK ADULT DAY CARE HEALTH CENTER INC - a) Cross-Defendant Pourtaverdi’s Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend; OVERRULED, in part; - b) Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Strike - GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part.

a)            With regard to the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action, for Forcible Entry and Detainer, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, respectively, the Court finds that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support those claims.  Therefore, the Demurrer is OVERRULED in that regard.

With regard to the Eighth Cause of Action for Trespass to Chattels, the Court notes that Cross-Complainant previously conceded the insufficiency of the pleading of these claims and now asserts an inadvertent failure to amend the allegations to better support the same. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to this claim, with leave to amend.

Cross-Complainant shall submit the Third Amended Cross-Complaint within 20 days.

b)            The motion is GRANTED, and unopposed, as to Items 10, 15, and 18 in the prayer, reflecting requests for attorney’s fees. The motion is DENIED as to the portions of the pleading which seek punitive damages and the corresponding prayer therefore; the Court finds that the pleading sufficiently alleges facts supporting that claim pursuant to Civ. Code § 3294 at this stage.

CV-25-005279 - GONZALEZ, MARGARITA vs EVERBRIGHT LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Set Two to Empower Solar Inc - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that Defendant failed to participate in the submission of a Joint Status Statement regarding this dispute as previously ordered by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff’s description of the current state of the dispute indicates that the parties have reached agreement on at least one issue in dispute, i.e. the selection of an administrator with regard to the handling of the notice procedure, but that Defendant has yet to respond on the additional issues. Therefore, the Court finds that the parties’ meet and confer efforts are insufficient at this stage and the potential remains for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer are continued in good faith.

Therefore, the hearing is continued again for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by December 4, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer, any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve, and their current respective positions on any items remaining in dispute.

Counsel are reminded that the failure to meet and confer, a well as the failure to comply with a court order in this regard, is sanctionable conduct under the Discovery Act and are urged to make genuine efforts with all due civility to one another regarding this dispute.

CV-26-001517 - VALLEY FIRST CREDIT UNION vs STANFILL, JAQUELYN SUZANNE - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment per CCP 187 to Correct the Spelling of Defendant's First Name - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The moving party has submitted sufficient competent evidence to support the requested amendment.

There is no proof of service of the proposed order on file. Moving party shall serve and re-submit the proposed order for signature. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

CV-26-008873 - SAUCEDO, LAURA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant's Demurrer to Appeal - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

Defendant failed to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 with regard to meet-and-confer efforts before filing the instant demurrer. In addition, as Plaintiff has now retained counsel, the Court believes that such efforts carry the potential for the parties to reach a resolution of the issues presented by the City herein. 

Therefore, the hearing is continued for this purpose, and the parties are instructed to meet and confer via telephone or video conference in a genuine, good faith attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. Defense counsel shall submit a supplemental declaration describing these efforts and identifying any issues remaining for judicial determination no later than November 24, 2026.

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

CV-23-005838 - MADRIGAL, MARIA vs BEST DEAL FOOD COMPANY INC - Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court also notes the effect of the 99.89% participation rate in this Settlement. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein. 

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for May 18, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court to confirm full administration of the settlement. 

Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).

CV-24-005387 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs ACEBES, CELESTE - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under CCP 664.6 and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the parties of October 2024, and Defendant’s failure to pay the sums due under said Agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted. The Court’s dismissal order of December 3, 2024, is hereby set aside and vacated.

Pursuant to said agreement and including costs and fees of $300, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $1,608.00.   (Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

CV-25-009631 - SYNCHRONY BANK vs CRUZ, MARIZAH - Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Request for Admissions to Defendant Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant on January 20, 2026, without substantial justification.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

All objections to the Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a). Furthermore, the Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted for all purposes including trial.    Civ Proc. Code §§.2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762.

Monetary sanctions of $310 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in filing and prosecuting this motion. Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d) and 2023.030 (a).

CV-26-007394 - IN RE GUZMAN, MARTHA COVARRUBIAS DE - Petitioner's Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights [Cal. Ins. Code 10139.5 (2010)] - DENIED without prejudice. 

Insurance Code section 10139.5 requires express written findings that the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest; that the payee understands the operative agreement and disclosure; and that the payee does not wish to cancel. The present record does not support these findings. 

The supporting declaration of Martha Covarrubias De Guzman was executed July 31, 2026, before the operative amended transfer agreement and disclosure were signed on September 21, 2026. The declaration therefore does not establish that she reviewed, understood, and elected to proceed with the amended transaction.

Furthermore, it appears to the Court that Ms. Guzman does not speak or understand English, as evidenced by the request for a Spanish interpreter at the prior and upcoming hearing, and there is no indication on the record that the contents of the declaration she signed were interpreted to her by a certified interpreter prior to Ms. Guzman signing it. 

The proposed transfer would assign future payments totaling $274,464.36 in exchange for $116,874.39. The record identifies a materially more favorable available alternative for the same payment stream. Ms. Guzman waived independent professional advice, notwithstanding that the transferee is required to pay up to $1,500 toward such advice, and the record contains no evidence that she evaluated and knowingly rejected the alternative. 

Further, the proposed uses are not supported by estimates, statements, budgets, or evidence showing that a transfer of this size is necessary. On this record, the Court cannot find the transaction fair, reasonable, and in Ms. Guzman’s best interest under Insurance Code section 10139.5

The Court finds overall that the requirements of California Insurance Code sections 10134-10139.5 have not been met and that the application of said provisions do not weigh in favor of finding the purchase agreement fair and reasonable, in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of her dependents, and in granting this petition. (Cal. Ins. Code § 10137).

The petition is therefore DENIED, without prejudice.

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

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