Civil Tentative Rulings

July 21, 2026

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-25-011679 – BAUSER, TIMOTHY vs GREEN, MATTHEW MILTON – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions – DROPPED.

Pursuant to the notice of withdrawal filed on July 16, 2026, the hearing on this motion is DROPPED.

CV-25-012731 – ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Partition Action for Lack of Jurisdiction – DENIED.

The motion to dismiss—which appears to be a reiteration of a prior motion to dismiss that was heard on June 11, 2026—is again DENIED as procedurally defective. As Plaintiff states in her opposition to the motion, “… California law does not authorize dismissal of a complaint through a freestanding motion to dismiss based upon the grounds asserted in Defendant's motion. Rather, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides specific procedural mechanisms for challenging a pleading, each governed by its own statutory requirements.” (Opp., at p. 3.) Such procedural mechanisms include a demurrer, a motion to strike, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Alternatively, a party may file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

Plaintiff has requested that the Court sanction Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 or any other applicable statute. That request is DENIED at this time; a motion for sanctions under § 128.7 must strictly comply with certain procedural requirements, including that the motion must be made separately from any other motion and must provide a safe-harbor period. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(c)(1).) However, Defendant should consider himself on notice that any failure to heed Court advisements and the repeated filing of motions making the same arguments may result in monetary sanctions in the future.

PR-23-000289 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST – Petitioner’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Petitioner, Angela Estacio and her Counsel of Record, Rebecca H. Sem - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the continued motion for consolidation on calendar that day.

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

CV-25-000613 – LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III – a) Defendant’s Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medial Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One  - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One – HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-d) HEARING REQUIRED. Defense counsel shall appear to demonstrate compliance with the Court’s 5-29-26 order.

CV-25-011776 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs FREAR, ALYSSA D – Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions as 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.

CV-25-011430 – CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO – Defendants Ramiro Chavez et al.’s Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Based on the arguments set forth in the moving papers, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the claims suggested therein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) In addition, the Court finds that much of the pleading is unintelligible as to the facts and theories alleged, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Ca. Rules of Ct., rule 2.112 in that regard, rendering the Complaint uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).)

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s untimely opposition fails to substantively address the defendants’ legal arguments herein.

Lastly, the Court notes that a substantial portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to arise from matters that have been addressed in a pre-existing family law action (#FL21-2757), raising serious questions about this Court’s jurisdiction to address such claims.

Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

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

CV-22-005038 – COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs SHAIBI, YEHIA AHMED QASSEM – a) Plaintiff County of Stanislaus’s Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1260.040 for Determination of Legal Issues Regarding Defendant Lion’s Market’s Entitlement to Claim Loss of Business Goodwill – GRANTED. b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Lion’s Market and/or its Counsel –

a) GRANTED.

A business owner is entitled to a jury trial on the amount of goodwill lost by a taking only if he or she first establishes, as a threshold matter, that the business had goodwill to lose. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Dry Canyon Enterprises, LLC (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 486, 491; City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Coyne (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1515, 1522-1523.

Whether the qualifying conditions for compensation for loss of goodwill in eminent domain proceedings have been met is a matter for the trial court to resolve, and only if the court finds these conditions exist does the remaining issue of the value of the goodwill loss, if any, go to the jury. City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Coyne, supra; City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 576, 594-595.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1260.040 authorizes determination of legal and evidentiary issues affecting compensation before trial, including goodwill entitlement issues. Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 856, 862 fn. 6.

The Court finds that Defendant Lion's Market has failed to establish entitlement to compensation for loss of business goodwill under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted. Defendant is precluded from asserting or presenting evidence in support of a claim for loss of business goodwill in this action. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1258.280.

b) GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Terminating sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process, including failure to respond to discovery and disobedience of court orders. CCP §§ 2023.010 (d) and (g) & 2023.030.

Lion’s Market is guilty of violating both sections and therefore prima facie, the court may impose terminating sanctions.

However, discovery sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort. Terminating sanctions for discovery abuses are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal App 5th 154, rehearing denied, review denied.  

Nevertheless, even under the Civil Discovery Act's incremental approach to imposing discovery sanctions, the trial court may impose terminating sanctions as a first measure in extreme cases, or where the record shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.  Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, supra.

Notably, a decision to order terminating sanctions, as a discovery sanction, should not be made lightly, but where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.  Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 690, review denied.

Thus, the trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse after considering the totality of the circumstances: the conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the detriment to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery. Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar, supra.

However, the trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment. Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967.  Furthermore, discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and they should not exceed that which is required to protect interests of party entitled to but denied discovery.

The general approach is to first impose lesser discovery sanctions and if those  fail to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.

City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 466.

Willful violation of  discovery orders is frequently grounds for terminating sanctions. Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377; Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093.

Notably, Lion’s Market does not dispute its violation of court orders and its failure to comply with discovery. It is undisputed that it has failed to respond to said discovery for about a year and has, at least twice previously, been ordered to pay monetary sanctions for discovery abuse. It also disobeyed the Court’s order of February 15, 2024, as to three discrete discovery motions to respond to interrogatories, requests for production and to produce documents within 15 days, and only served its responses 6 months later on the eve of the County’s motion for terminating sanctions. Indeed, the court’s tentative ruling granted the motion for terminating sanctions, reducing same to monetary sanctions only after continuing the matter for a Joint Status Statement confirming Lion Markets production of the ordered discovery. See Mardikian’s Declaration in Support of Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Exhibits C and D.

Lion’s Market has also failed to comply with the court’s order of August 21, 2024, issued almost a year ago ordering the payment of monetary sanctions of $1,800 which remains outstanding. The motion is supported by several letters from Counsel for Lion’s Market continuously promising the outstanding discovery. The afore-listed conduct all constitute abuse of the discovery process for which the requested terminating sanctions may be imposed.  This case dates back to 2022. Absent Lion’s Market’s obstinacy and delay in providing the requested information, this issue of goodwill could have been addressed a long time ago.

The court finds that Lion’s Market has demonstrated an overall nonchalant approach to this matter, as further evidenced by Counsel’s brief Opposition herein which did not even attempt to address its conduct or offer any apology to the court. It appears that the previously imposed monetary sanctions have been inadequate to protect the judicial process and support the call for terminating sanctions.

Without treating lightly D’s non-compliance with the court’s orders and discovery abuse herein, the court notes that terminating sanctions are a drastic measure. Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (2015), N.A., 242 Cal. App. 4th 1265, 1271, (as modified on denial of reh'g). 

In view of the court’s order in the related motion to determine legal issues as to Lion Market’s inability to adduce evidence regarding the issue of goodwill pursuant to

Civ. Proc. Code § 1258.280, the court denies the request for termination and default judgement without prejudice.  The court’s order barring Lion’s Market’s from adducing any evidence as to goodwill is tantamount to an issue and evidentiary sanction pursuant Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030 (b) and (c), which is therefore granted based on Lion’s Market’s abuse of the discovery process.

Monetary sanctions are awarded in the amount of $4,200.00 against Lion’s Market and their attorney of record, Tyler Kelly of The Ogden Law Firm, payable within fourteen days of the date of service of this order.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order no later than July 28, 2026, that complies with the court’s ruling.

CV-25-010636 – MOCHIZUKI, THOMAS H vs SOSA, EFREN – Plaintiff Thomas H. Mochizuki’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents and Imposing Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant  on April 14, 2026, or at all, without substantial justification.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a)). Furthermore, said Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted against Defendant in this matter for all purposes including trial.  (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410;  St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762). 

Additionally, sanctions of $1,410.00 are awarded against defendant and in favor of plaintiff. 

CV-25-012513 – CARRILLO, HECTOR vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE – Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [Code Civ. Proc. 10089(a) & 473(b)] – GRANTED.

The court finds that Petitioner’s motion does not meet the requirement of “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” but is essentially a repetition of Petitioner’s prior Motion to Vacate and Reset hearing. Code of Civ Pro §1008(a); Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 765, 771;  Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 183; David S. Karton, a Law Corp. v. Musick, Peeler Garrett LLP (2024) 103 Cal. App. 5th 935.

However, the court on its own motion reviews its prior ruling of May 14, 2026, and in the face of Petitioner’s excusable mistake, diligence and lack of prejudice to Respondent, the Court grants the motion.

The court hereby vacates and sets aside its ruling of May 14, 2026. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, as modified. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate is reset for hearing on August 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this court for oral arguments only.

CV-26-003070 – PETRATOS, PANAGIOTIS vs VILLANUEVA, NASER – Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - HEARING REQUIRED

Based on the moving papers, it appears that good cause exists for the court to conclude that the requirements of Civ Proc. Code § 483.010(a) for a right to attach order and writ of attachment have been met.  If the Application is granted, the Court will require plaintiff to deposit an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.00.

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***