Civil Tentative Rulings

September 30, 2026

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

CV-25-004886 – EJINAKA, PATRICK vs ELITE FAMILY SERVICES – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds 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. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with rule 3.769(c) of the California Rules of Court. The class counsel, class representative, and settlement administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court finds the timelines set forth in the settlement agreement acceptable. The Court intends to modify and sign the proposed order.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for March 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 of this Court. The motion for final approval along with all necessary supporting documents shall be filed and served no later than February 4, 2026.

CV-25-007612 – US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs CHAVEZ, MARIA T – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment – GRANTED.

Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant has demonstrated defective service. Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

On January 15, 2026, this Court entered Judgment by Default against Defendant Maria T. Chavez. On March 11, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion. There is no proof of service in the Court file, but Plaintiff timely opposed.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is unnecessary as the Court probably need not make such a ruling to consider papers filed in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

“The court . . . may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).) “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential; if a default judgment was entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons as required by statute, the judgment is void, as the court lacked jurisdiction in a fundamental sense over the party and lacked authority to enter judgment. [Citation.]” (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 370.)

Defendant declares that she was never served with the summons and complaint. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s proof of service demonstrates service on the wrong apartment and on a person having a description that does not fit Defendant. Defendant further declares that Plaintiff possessed the correct apartment number before filing the instant case yet still served the wrong address. Defendant avers that she subsequently informed Plaintiff of her correct address and that the wrong person had been served.

Plaintiff does not dispute that it was informed of the defective service. Plaintiff invokes Evidence Code section 647’s presumption of proper service. “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) Here, Defendant has produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption and demonstrate defective service. Plaintiff’s assertion that describing a 5’0” person as 5’8” is normal human error does not comport with the Court’s experience.

CV-26-004068 – CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT LEASE & FINANCE LLC vs BJP TRANSPORTATION INC – Plaintiff Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance LLC’s Motion for Alternative Service – GRANTED, and unopposed. Defendant Chahal to be served by publication and mailing.

The unopposed motion for alternative service is GRANTED. Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

On August 25, 2026, Plaintiff filed and served by mail the instant motion. There is no opposition in the Court file.

Plaintiff has made at least nine attempts to serve two Defendants: Defendant Tirath S. Chahal and Defendant BJP Transportation Inc., through its sole director, Defendant Chahal. Defendant Chahal filed a Certificate of Dissolution on behalf of BJP Transportation Inc. on March 22, 2024.

Adults at the service address have confirmed that it is Defendants’ address, but Defendants appear to be evading service. At least one other adult at Defendants’ residence has refused to accept service on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff seeks to serve Defendant BJP through the California Secretary of State pursuant to California Corporations Code § 2011(b) and also seeks to serve Defendant Chahal via publication in the Modesto Bee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50. The Court will further require mail service on Defendant Chahal.

CV-26-007266 – VALLIJO, MARYANN vs AMERICAN ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Amended Proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs on September 9, 2026.

On September 22, 2026, Plaintiffs in the three related Stanislaus County cases filed a declaration stating that Notices of Related Cases were filed in all 12 related cases (three in Stanislaus County and nine in Madera County). Plaintiffs jointly request consolidation of the three actions in Stanislaus County, the appointment of Scott Edward Cole and Daniel S. Robinson as Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Adam E. Polk as Liaison Counsel, and the scheduling of certain deadlines pursuant to the Amended Proposed Order filed September 9, 2026.

The Court does so without prejudice to further motions in related cases or in these cases and does not intend to bind any out-of-county judges in any way.

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

CV-23-001140 – CONTRERAS, MARIA vs ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME STORE – Defendant GBS Warranty Services, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – DENIED, in part, GRANTED in part.

Plaintiff timely filed her memorandum of points and authorities on July 20, 2026, but did not timely file the required responsive separate statement and supporting declarations. The failure to timely file a separate statement may constitute grounds for granting the motion. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)(2) and (3); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1350). “Without a separate statement of undisputed facts with references to supporting evidence … it is impossible … to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts”. (Bacoka v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. (2021) 71 Cal App. 5th 126, 131).

Section 437c(b)(2) nevertheless expressly permits the Court, for good cause, to order otherwise concerning the opposition deadline. While the Court is not entirely convinced that the facts support Counsel’s claims of a mistaken opposition deadline, in order for Plaintiff not to be prejudiced by her Counsel’s conduct, the Court exercises that discretion here. The hearing on the Motion ultimately was continued to September 30, 2026, Defendant received and substantively responded to the late evidence, and Defendant filed detailed evidentiary objections addressing that evidence. Under these circumstances, and in light of the preference for adjudicating a dispositive motion upon the evidentiary record rather than solely upon a procedural default, the Court finds good cause to consider Plaintiff's late-filed separate statement and supporting declarations. This finding does not excuse Plaintiff's failure to comply with the statutory filing deadline and Counsel is admonished not to repeat this conduct.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant filed objections to the declarations of Maria Contreras, Angelica Contreras, and Plaintiff's counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli. The Court rules only upon those objections material to disposition of the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(q).) The written objections themselves assert hearsay, lack of personal knowledge and foundation, improper lay opinion/legal conclusions, relevance, and other grounds.

Declaration of Maria Contreras. Defendant's threshold objection to the declaration is SUSTAINED. The declaration is written entirely in English notwithstanding evidence that Maria Contreras cannot read or understand English, and the declaration contains no identification or attestation of a translator establishing that its contents were accurately translated to her before she certified them under penalty of perjury. (See Detrick v. Shimada, (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 170 holding that an English-language declaration by a declarant who could not read, write, or speak English was not competent evidence where the intermediary was not adequately identified, the intermediary's qualifications were not established, and there was no attestation establishing the accuracy of the translation).

The Court therefore does not rely upon Maria Contreras's declaration in determining whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue. The remaining objections to particular portions of that declaration are MOOT.

Declaration of Angelica Contreras. Objection No. 10 is SUSTAINED IN PART as to statements concerning Maria Contreras's medical condition and statements concerning prior calls that are not shown to be within the declarant's personal knowledge; otherwise OVERRULED insofar as the declaration describes communications personally made or received by Angelica Contreras.

Objection No. 11 is OVERRULED IN MATERIAL PART. Angelica Contreras states from asserted personal knowledge that she made calls concerning her mother's claim, reported that the sofa had broken only days earlier, supplied her own telephone number and email address for communications, and did not receive the communications she says were promised. Defendant offers materially contrary records and recorded-call evidence. That conflict goes to the merits and weight of the evidence and ordinarily may not be resolved by choosing Defendant's evidence over Plaintiff's opposing evidence on summary judgment. Defendant's characterization of the declaration as a "sham declaration" does not, on this record, warrant disregarding the testimony wholesale. (Turley v. Familian Corp. (2017), 18 Cal.App.5th 969;Estate of Housley, (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342).

Objection No. 12 is SUSTAINED as to the declarant's characterization of Defendant's alleged motive for making a settlement offer and otherwise MOOT, because the post-dispute settlement discussion is unnecessary to disposition of this motion.

Objection No. 13 is OVERRULED IN PART to the extent Angelica Contreras testifies from her own knowledge that she did not receive a requested callback or communication; otherwise SUSTAINED to the extent she purports to establish categorically that neither Plaintiff nor any other person was ever contacted, absent adequate personal knowledge of all such communications.

Objection No. 14 is SUSTAINED. Assertions that Plaintiff was "taken advantage of," "defrauded," or was not "protected as she was supposed to" are impermissible legal conclusions rather than competent factual testimony.

Declaration of Jacob O. Partiyeli. Objection No. 15 is OVERRULED insofar as counsel's declaration concerns the procedural circumstances surrounding the late opposition papers. Those facts are relevant to the Court's determination of good cause under section 437c(b)(2).

Objections Nos. 16, 19, and 20 are SUSTAINED to the extent counsel offers legal conclusions concerning the merits of Plaintiff's claims, statutory interpretation, the existence of triable issues, or what issues must be determined by a jury. Legal argument is not evidence under section 437c(d).

Objections Nos. 17 and 18 are SUSTAINED IN MATERIAL PART. Counsel's assertions concerning alleged discovery misconduct, destruction or concealment of recordings, and obstruction of depositions are not adequately supported in the declaration by the underlying discovery requests, responses, orders, or comparable evidence necessary to decide such disputes on this motion. Those assertions do not establish a triable issue concerning the substantive causes of action presently before the Court.

All remaining objections not expressly ruled upon are MOOT because the challenged evidence is not material to disposition of the motion.

A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing that one or more elements of the challenged cause of action cannot be established or that a complete defense exists. Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (c), (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-855.)

The Court does not weigh competing evidence or determine credibility on summary judgment. It determines whether the evidence and reasonable competing inferences present an issue requiring trial. (See Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.)

First Cause of Action - GRANTED.

Civil Code section 1782(a) requires a consumer, at least 30 days before commencement of an action for damages under the CLRA, to notify the alleged violator in writing of the particular violations and demand correction, repair, replacement, or other rectification. Compliance is a prerequisite to a CLRA damages action. ((Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1211; Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1259-1260.) Plaintiff does not establish compliance with section 1782(a).

Although section 1782(d) permits commencement of an action seeking injunctive relief without prior notice, the operative First Amended Complaint does not seek CLRA injunctive relief. Defendant therefore is entitled to summary adjudication of the First Cause of Action.

Second and Third Causes of Action: Express Warranty and Contract - DENIED.

The Protection Plan required covered damage to be reported within 30 days of discovery. Defendant's evidence indicates that the breakage was first reported on June 23, 2021, and that the caller stated it had been discovered in April. (Defendant’s UMF 14, Sanchez Declaration. Defendant therefore denied the breakage claim as untimely. Defendant further presents evidence that the nail-polish claim was approved and a technician was dispatched, but the technician was unable to make contact. (Plascencia Declaration, Lezine, declaration). 

The admissible portions of Angelica Contreras's declaration, however, state that she made an earlier call regarding the broken furniture, provided different contact information, and did not receive the communications she expected concerning cleaning and repair. (Contreras Declaration)

The Court cannot resolve those competing accounts by determining credibility on summary judgment. (Estate of Housley, (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342; (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832).

A factfinder could therefore be required to decide whether GBS used appropriate contact information, whether Plaintiff failed to cooperate, and whether GBS generally performed its contractual administration obligations. Triable issues therefore remain concerning timely reporting and Defendant's performance in administering the approved stain claim. Summary adjudication of the Second and Third Causes of Action is denied.

Fourth Cause of Action: Unfair Competition - DENIED.

The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Although several predicate causes of action fail for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's UCL allegations also concern Defendant's administration of the Protection Plan. Under the “unfair” prong of the UCL, a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law. (Beverage v. Apple, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 736 [review denied (July 10, 2024).

Because triable issues remain concerning Defendant's handling of an approved covered claim and its performance obligations, Defendant has not established that the Fourth Cause of Action fails in its entirety. (Business and Professions Code section 17200).

The Court's ruling concerns survival of the cause of action and does not hold that Plaintiff may recover the compensatory "economic damages" sought in the First Amended Complaint under the UCL. UCL monetary relief is limited to qualifying restitution; nonrestitutionary disgorgement is unavailable in an individual UCL action. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134.)

Fifth Through Seventh Causes of Action - GRANTED.

The negligence claim alleges essentially the same failure by Defendant to determine coverage and perform repairs alleged as breaches of the Protection Plan. A contractual breach does not become tortious unless the conduct also violates an independent duty arising from tort law. (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 551-552.) Plaintiff identifies no independent tort duty supporting the Fifth Cause of Action.

Negligence per se under Evidence Code section 669 is not an independent cause of action but an evidentiary doctrine affecting the standard of care. Summary adjudication therefore is granted as to the Sixth Cause of Action.

The Seventh Cause of Action alleges an implied contractual duty to perform with reasonable care but identifies no claim materially distinct from Plaintiff's surviving contract claim. Summary adjudication is therefore granted as to the Seventh Cause of Action.

Eighth Cause of Action: Implied Covenant - DENIED.

The implied covenant may not create obligations beyond the agreement, but it prevents a contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party's right to receive contractual benefits. (Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Department of Parks & Recreation (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1026: Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371.)  The Services Agreement submitted with Defendant's evidence states that each Product sold to a customer is a contract between GBS and the customer and obligates GBS to use its best efforts to service customers in accordance with the Product. (Services Agreement § 2.01, cited to Sanchez Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A, pp. 14–15). The Protection Plan separately identifies GBS as administrator. (Defendant’s Exhibit C)

Because the evidence conflicts concerning the contact information furnished to GBS and whether Defendant's handling of the approved stain service frustrated completion of that service, a triable issue remains. Summary adjudication is denied.

Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Causes of Action - GRANTED.

Plaintiff's deposition testimony attributes the point-of-sale representations that induced her purchase to the retail salesperson and establishes that she had no pre-sale communications with GBS. (Contreras Declaration). Plaintiff fails to present evidence establishing that the salesperson acted as GBS's agent in making the alleged oral representations. Defendant therefore negates the necessary attribution to GBS underlying Plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud/deceit, false-promise and false-advertising claims.

Eleventh Cause of Action: Elder Abuse - GRANTED.

The evidence does not establish that GBS took, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained Plaintiff's property for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or that it obtained property from Plaintiff through undue influence. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 (a) and (c)). Plaintiff’s evidence concerning the alleged pressured sale relates principally to the retail transaction rather than conduct by GBS. Summary adjudication of the Eleventh Cause of Action is granted.

Fourteenth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment - GRANTED.

Unjust enrichment describes a restitutionary theory rather than an independent freestanding cause of action. (Hill v. Roll International Corp. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1307.) Defendant's evidence reflects that GBS received a portion of the Plan purchase price, but Plaintiff has not produced evidence establishing an independent basis requiring restitution from GBS under the Fourteenth Cause of Action as pleaded. Summary adjudication is therefore granted, without determining any restitutionary relief that may ultimately be available under a surviving cause of action

Because the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Causes of Action remain for adjudication, Defendant has not established entitlement to judgment on the entire First Amended Complaint.  The Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore DENIED.

The alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Causes of Action, and DENIED as to the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Causes of Action.

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

CV-23-003105 – COOL SWANG LLC vs TRANSCANNA HOLDINGS INC – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service is insufficient to establish notice to the corporate client, in that it appears the moving papers were not directed to an authorized agent or representative of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10 et seq.) A corporation can have knowledge only through its officers and agents . (See, e.g. Snyder v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 660, 664.)

In addition, counsel failed to submit and serve the proposed order on the mandatory Judicial Council form.

Lastly, in the event the motion is resubmitted, counsel is instructed that the proposed order  should contain the following admonishment: “A corporation may participate in this action only through an attorney. A corporate party retains all the obligations of a litigant. Failure to hire an attorney may lead to an order striking the corporation’s pleadings and entering its default. A default may be followed by a default judgment against the corporation.” (See Urethane Foam Experts, Inc. v. Latimer (1995) 31 Cal.App.4^th 763, 766.)

CV-26-001187 – LIMA, JOCELYN vs EAST BAY HC RESOURCE – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Individual Paga Claim and to Stay Plaintiff’s Representative Paga Claim - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has raised an issue with regard to the formation of the agreement which requires further examination. Specifically, the Court wishes to obtain more information with regard to the electronic signature process and the significance of the “signature not verified” notation on the subject agreement. Therefore, the Court intends to hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue.  Counsel shall appear at the time of the instant hearing prepared to select a hearing date in that regard within the next 30 days.

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

CV-24-009448 – GUTIERREZ, GIOVANNI VICTOR vs CRABTREE, THERESA DARLENE – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Giovanni Victor Gutierrez and Zoey Trujillo to Respond to Defendant Theresa Darlene Crabtree’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, unopposed; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Giovanni Victor Gutierrez and Zoey Trujillo to Respond to Defendant Theresa Darlene Crabtree’s Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, unopposed; c) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Giovanni Victor Gutierrez and Zoey Trujillo to Respond to Defendant Theresa Darlene Crabtree’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, unopposed.

a) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s properly propounded Requests for Production served on Plaintiff on November 6, 2025, or at all. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a)).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by Plaintiff to said discovery are hereby waived. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a) and (b)). Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection-free responses to said Supplemental Requests for Production, Set One, within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order.

The Court also finds that said failure to respond is without substantial justification and accordingly finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions of $310.00 for attorney’s fees and costs reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Defendant’s Counsel within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order.  (Civ Proc. Code §§2031.300(c), 2023.010 (h); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)). 

Furthermore, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)).

b) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendant’s properly propounded Special Interrogatories served on Plaintiff on January 26, 2026, or at all. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b))

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by Plaintiff to said discovery are hereby waived. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection-free responses to said Special Interrogatories, Set One without objections within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. (CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).)

The Court also finds that said failure to respond is without substantial justification and accordingly finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions of $255.00 for her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Defendant’s Counsel within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)).

c) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendant’s properly propounded Special Interrogatories served on Plaintiff on January 26, 2026, or at all. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b))

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by Plaintiff to said discovery are hereby waived. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection-free responses to said Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One without objections within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. (CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).)

The Court also finds that said failure to respond is without substantial justification and accordingly finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions of $157.50 for her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Defendant’s Counsel within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)).

CV-26-000478 – DONAHUE, JOSEPH THOMAS vs MAYOL, TRENTON – a) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container, LLC and Trenton Mayol’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue’s First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to Friday, 11/6/26, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 24, on the Court’s motion; b) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container LLC and Trenton Mayol’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue’s First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED to Friday, 11/6/26, at 8:30 a.m., in Dept. 24, on the Court’s motion.

a-b) The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings. No further briefing is required or allowed. 

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 in Department 19***