February 3, 2026

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

CV-24-003698 – MCKEE, KONI vs DICKEYS BBQ PIT – Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to have Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED as to both B&M Enterpises and Bobby Williams, sanctions are issued in the amount of $210 jointly and severally against B&M and its attorney and $210 against Bobby Williams individually.

Plaintiff seeks to have two sets of requests for admissions deemed admitted, one served on Defendant Bobby Williams, and the other served on B&M William Enterprises LLC.

The Court notes that electronic service of the motion was made on Scott Malm at the time of filing on December 18, 2025 and mail service on Bobby Williams was made December 31, 2025. Service is timely. No response has been provided, thus the motions must be granted.

The Court notes that Mr. Malm remains attorney of record for B&M Enterprises.

Sanctions are reduced based on local rates and the simplicity of the motion.

In addition, the Court notes for future reference that one motion should be filed for each discovery set. Combining discovery motions is, at best, disfavored.

CV-24-009186 – LVNV FUNDING LLC vs BARAJAS, MARIA – Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered: CCP 473(B) –– HEARING REQUIRED.

There is no opposition to the motion, but there appear to be timeline issues which indicate the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) states in relevant part, “Application for [relief under § 743(b)] shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”

Defendant’s default was taken on March 13, 2025. A default judgment against Defendant was then entered on May 15, 2025. This motion was not filed until December 10, 2025—more than six months after the default judgment was taken. In addition, the Court notes that the proposed answer is not an actual answer; Defendant has only attached a bank record showing payments.

The Court wishes to hear from Plainitiff on its position.

CV-25-011123 – PEREZ, VELIA vs RUSHMORE SERVICING – Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint – SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendants request judicial notice of two recorded documents: (1) Substitution of Trustee (June 25, 2024) and (2) Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (recorded December 4, 2025). Pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453, the Court GRANTS the unopposed request.

For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days’ leave to amend.

The first cause of action alleges, “DEFENDANTS failed to satisfy the requirements of Civil Code §2923.5(a)(2) before recording a Notice of Default and violated this statute and refused to communicate with Plaintiffs.” (Compl. ¶ 18.) Although Plaintiff asserts in opposition to the demurrer that there was no contact whatsoever from Defendants before the NOD was recorded, the complaint fails to set forth those allegations.

The second cause of action contends at ¶ 23 that Defendants’ failure to assign a single point of contact (SPOC) was material “because in failing to assign a SPOC, the entity has prevented PLAINTIFF’S chances for a successful submission of proper papers and to complete the loan modification or other alternatives to save the Subject Property from foreclosure, and the resultant loss of equity.” However, Plaintiff contradictorily states in ¶ 21 and ¶ 32 that she was able to submit a loan modification application on September 1 and concurrently asked for a SPOC. Therefore, it is unclear how the failure to assign a SPOC hindered her in completion of her loan modification application. Clarification as to these allegations is necessary, and damages issues areunclear.

The third cause of action asserts in ¶ 27 that Defendants “did not notify” Plaintiff of foreclosure alternatives, but it is unclear what Plaintiff means by “notify.” Civil Code § 2924.9(a) states in relevant part, “Unless a borrower has previously exhausted the first lien loan modification process offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer described in Section 2923.6, within five business days after recording a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924, a mortgage servicer that offers one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written communication to the borrower that includes all of the following information…”

To state a valid cause of action under this section, Plaintiff would need to allege that she did not receive, and on information and belief, Defendants did not timely send, the written communication required by § 2924.9.

The fourth cause of action alleges at ¶ 36 that Defendants “violated Civil Code § 2923.6(c) by failing to rescind all foreclosure efforts against PLAINTIFF, including the recording of a Notice of Default or Notice of Trustee’s Sale” once her loan modification application was pending. However, as Defendants note in their opening brief, there is no requirement to “rescind” the recording of these documents. In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege the status of her application at the time that the foreclosure sale took place. Also, the inference from the following cause of action is that her application was denied and she was not given time to appeal it, which contradicts the (inferred) assertion in the fourth cause of action that her loan modification application was still pending at the time of the sale.

The fifth cause of action is based on inferential facts that are contradictory to the inferential facts on which the fourth cause of action is based. Either the foreclosure sale was improperly held while the loan modification application was pending, or the loan modification application was denied before the sale, but Plaintiff was not given the appropriate time to appeal. Both sets of facts cannot be concurrently true. Clarification is required.

Because the demurrer to the first five causes of action is sustained, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action must be sustained as well.

Defendants contend that the seventh cause of action fails because Plaintiff has not alleged a tender. In fact, a wrongful foreclosure cause of action based on HBOR violations may not require a tender. (See Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1307 [197 Cal.Rptr.3d 151, 162], as modified (Jan. 14, 2016) [“[P]laintiff alleged the foreclosure was in breach of Bank of America's legal obligations and that his modification was denied on a false claim that he failed to produce all required documentation. As we explained above, plaintiff alleged prejudice in that he may have been able to avoid the foreclosure had Bank of America completed the modification review process in good faith. Plaintiff was excused from tendering. And, under the facts as alleged, foreclosure was not authorized.”].) However, because Plaintiff has not successfully alleged a violation of the HBOR statutes, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained.

Leave to Amend

The Court considers the inconsistent pleadings as a potential issue which may impair the ability to successfully amend. Nonetheless, it appears that Plaintiff may be able to allege viable causes of action if the facts underlying the case and the legal allegations were more precisely and consistently stated, leave to amend is GRANTED.

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

The Court lacks an administrative record and cannot yet rule.

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

CV-23-004628 – COUGHLIN, SAMANTHA vs FRESHPOINT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INC – Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.

Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court will GRANT the motion absent any objections or other unexpected information. It appears that proper notice to the settlement class has been given in compliance with the law and as required by the Court’s order granting preliminary approval. 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. R. Ct., 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 in the motions and supporting papers, as follows:

        Gross Settlement Amount: $135,000;

        Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $2,950;

        Payment to Class Representative: $10,000;

        PAGA allocation to LWDA (75%) and class members (25%): $13,500;

        Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees: $45,000; and

        Class Counsel’s costs: $7,520.75.

The Court notes that Class Counsel requested $8,083.73 in costs, but the Court disallows the following: postage, scanning, and copying fees totaling $173.13, and three messenger fees for courtesy copies at $129.95 each. The postage, scanning, and copying costs should be part of overhead. As for the messenger fees, Class Counsel could have simply contacted the clerk to ask if the Court wanted courtesy copies, and if so, the email address to which the copies should be sent. Accordingly, the Court has subtracted $562.98 from the requested costs.

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for October 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22, to confirm full administration of the settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall submit a compliance report no later than five 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. In addition, at the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds be distributed to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. To that end, Class Counsel shall submit any necessary proposed amended judgment at least five court days before the compliance hearing.

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. R. Ct., rule 3.771(b).)

Class Counsel is ordered to submit a new proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.  

CV-24-003155 – WESTERN HILLS WATER DISTRICT vs WORLD INTERNATIONAL – a) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs – CONTINUED to February 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) Defendant World International LLC’s Motion for Order Awarding Attorney's Fees – CONTINUED to February 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a– b)

These matters are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for further review and consideration.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-24-009323 – SEED INVESTMENTS LLC vs TAYLOR, ANTHONY – Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

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.) 

In addition, the proposed order should be corrected to accurately reflect the future proceedings (CMC and OSC hearings) set for 6-1-26.

The effectiveness of the order shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is submitted. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).) 

 

Counsel shall submit a revised order in compliance with this ruling.

CV-25-000643 – TORRES, DANIEL MARTINEZ vs JOES TRAVEL PLAZA – a) Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Claim for Punitive Damages – HEARING REQUIRED.

In view of the uncertainty over the status of Plaintiff’s current representation, the parties shall appear to address this issue with the Court.

CV-25-009454 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs GILLMORE, JACOB D – Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendant has established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement pertaining to the dispute herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)  In addition, Plaintiff has not opposed the instant motion. Therefore, the motion is granted and the matter is referred to arbitration through AAA, in accordance with the terms of the subject agreement.

All further proceedings herein are stayed pending arbitration.

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

CV-23-004243 – SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC – Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the near unanimous rate of participation by class members to be a strong factor in approving this settlement. Additionally, the Court finds that the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the PAGA Award to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. 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 Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 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.

CV-25-012513 – CARRILLO, HECTOR vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE – Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief – DENIED.

The Court finds that Respondents have demonstrated the exertion of reasonable effort to locate the requested records given the search information provided by Petitioner and given that an agency is obliged to search for records based on criteria set forth in the search request. (Fredericks v. Superior Ct., (2015), 233 Cal. App. 4th 209, (disapproved of on other grounds by Nat'l Laws. Guild v. City of Hayward, (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 488); California First Amend. Coal. v. Superior Ct., (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 159; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 on remand, unpublished).

Additionally, an agency may legitimately raise an objection that a request is overbroad or unduly burdensome, or that the documents cannot be located with reasonable effort.  (Fredericks v. Superior Court, supra; California First Amend. Coal. v. Superior Ct., (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 159).

The Court finds that reviewing potentially 1800 documents on microfilm would be unduly burdensome for Respondents. Respondents have discharged their burden in this regard.  (State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court (1992), 10 Cal.App.4th 1177, review denied.)

Accordingly, the Petition is hereby denied.   

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:

UD-26-000035 – SHADOW GLEN APARTMENTS LLC vs SOSA, JENNIFER – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.