Civil Tentative Rulings

August 25, 2026

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

CV-23-005650 – LOPEZ, RAFAEL, J vs NGB CONSTRUCTION INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to compel Defendant’s Compliance with the Belaire-West Notice Process and Production of Class Contact Information; Request for Sanctions – DENIED as moot. Monetary sanctions are ordered jointly and severally against Defendant and counsel in the amount of $2,560. 

Both parties agree that the motion to compel is moot because Defendant produced the required contact information for all putative class members one day after Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff argues that sanctions should be awarded because Defendant produced the information only after the motion to compel was filed.

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

Here, Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding approval of the Belaire-West Notice at least three times between March 27, 2026, and June 9, 2026. On June 12, 2026, Defendant confirmed it had no revisions to the Belaire-West Notice. Plaintiff subsequently requested the class member information on June 13, 2026, June 16, 2026, and June 25, 2026. In addition, the settlement administrator sent at least three emails asking when the class member information would be provided. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s emails or the settlement administrator’s emails. On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed in the instant motion. One day later, Defendant produced the information.

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees for 5.8 hours billed at a rate of $581 per hour in connection with the instant motion together with the filing fee of $60.00, for a total amount of $3,429.80. Despite multiple follow-ups from Plaintiff, Defendant did not produce the class member information until Plaintiff filed its motion to compel. Defendant could have taken action earlier to assemble the information. The Court finds sanctions are warranted in this case and sets them at 5 hours at $500 plus $60 in filing fees.

The Court is well aware that Plaintiff lacks clean hands on timeliness issues in this case. Nonetheless, the delays here, especially given the lack of contact and lack of information on the time required to assemble the information, are not excusable.

Monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,560.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are issued. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Melmed Law Group, P.C., within 20 days. Moving party to submit a proposed order within 5 court days that comports with this ruling.

CV-25-012288 – VEGA, GLORIA vs US RENAL CARE INC – a) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED with leave to amend; b) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint – GRANTED with leave to amend.

a) Preliminarily, the demurrer fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.”

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the delivery of a written communication sent to Plaintiff via email on May 19, 2026. Instead of responding with a time to meet and confer, Plaintiff responded via email merely requesting that the hearing be set after July 3, 2026. (Declaration of Lyly K. Tran, ¶¶ 2–3.)

A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

The Court nonetheless reaches the merits.

In this case, Defendant, a dialysis provider, is alleged to have failed to take precautions for Plaintiff, who was at risk for a fall, did fall, and suffered injury.

One threshold issue is whether the episodic nature of the dialysis treatment is sufficient under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et.seq. is the type of custodial care envisioned by the code. Plaintiff asserts that because Defendant took steps to avoid the fall risk, it was assessing Plaintiff’s basic needs.

But under Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4^th 148, there must be a robust caretaking component. Here, the alleged caretaking appears to be solely the fall risk abatement efforts. As Defendant observes, in Oroville Hospital v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5^th 382, (a case that had reached the summary judgment stage) even in-home wound care is insufficient caretaking to reach the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act’s ambit.

Defendant also raises insufficient evidence of a managing agent’s ratification. At the pleading stage, Plaintiff is necessarily disadvantaged by her inferior knowledge. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s citation to Allied Mutual Ins. Co. v. Webb (2001) 91 Cal.App.4^th 1190 is unhelpful; in that case ratification was found not to have happened and not to be possible as the wrongful event had already occurred.

Plaintiff’s assertions on ratification are speculative.

Leave to Amend

The Court is skeptical that the defects can be repaired. Nonetheless, leave to amend is generally granted and it is not clear-cut that leave to amend is not possible. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 15 days.

b) The Motion to Strike is GRANTED with leave to amend for largely the same reasons as above. Further, allegations of unfair or deceptive practices are insufficient.

CV-26-002154 – WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SODHI, JAKRUN S – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents - GRANTED.

a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1–3, 6, and 10 and DENIED in part as to Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendants shall serve further responses which are code-compliant no later than September 10, 2026. Each response shall include a statement that Defendants have made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.220.)

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in person, by video, or teleconference. “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff initially sent written correspondence to Defendants outlining purported deficiencies with Defendants discovery responses and requesting to meet and confer. In response, Defendants served amended responses. Unsatisfied with the amended responses, Plaintiff avers that she subsequently emailed Defendants prior to filing the motion to compel and offered to confer by telephone, but Defendants stated that it could not respond because there was a pending demurrer. The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer.

Interrogatory Nos. 1–3 seek information concerning the identification of persons who participated in Plaintiff’s representation, their roles, and a description of the work performed by two specific Defendants. Defendants generally refuse to provide substantive responses, instead stating either that their billing program does not track all users or that billing records have been provided but are incomplete. Defendants are not relieved from responding to the interrogatories simply because records are incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 [“If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”].) The same is true for Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 10—Defendants’ responses point to an email log and/or email string but failed to fully identify the requested information.

Defendants responded to Interrogatory No. 11 by referring to the summary of events prepared for the Parties’ prior arbitration. This appears sufficient.

Defendant shall provide verified further responses within 20 days.

b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve further responses which are code-compliant no later than September 10, 2026. The requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in person, by video, or teleconference. “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff initially sent written correspondence to Defendants outlining purported deficiencies with Defendants discovery responses and requesting to meet and confer. In response, Defendants served amended responses. Unsatisfied with the amended responses, Plaintiff avers that she subsequently emailed Defendants prior to filing the motion to compel and offered to confer by telephone, but Defendants stated that it could not respond because there was a pending demurrer. The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Request Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14. For the most part, Defendants’ opposition responds either that the requested documents do not exist or that all documents in Defendants’ possession have been produced, but Defendants’ statements in opposition are unsupported by any declaration. Further, each of Defendants’ responses does not comply with the form of response required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 et seq. For example, each response does not include a statement of compliance (section 2031.220) and/or a statement of inability to comply (section 2031.230); nor did Defendants identify the specific request number to which the produced documents respond (section 2031.280).

In addition, several responses appear deficient. For example, Request No. 3 seeks documents sufficient to show calendaring. The opposition states that responsive information does not exist but Defendants have also referenced a calendaring error. If these items once existed but do not exist now, Defendant should so assert. Defendant argues in opposition that the information is premature but that contention is unsupported by the cited legal authority. Instead, “a request for production of documents to be a legislatively authorized method of discovery of insurance information[.]” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 743–744.)

Defendant shall provide verified further responses within 20 days.

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

CV-26-001914 – STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs COOPER, BRANDON W – Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration – GRANTED.

For the reasons below, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court will modify its previous order to set November 30, 2026, as the effective date on which Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the Subject Property. Moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with this ruling.

On July 17, 2026, Defendants Brandon W. Cooper and Katie M. Cooper filed the instant motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s July 21, 2026 order granting Plaintiff Stanislaus Council of Government’s (“StanCOG”) Motion for an Order for Possession of the Subject Property. Plaintiff opposed and Defendants replied.

Per the Court’s previous July 21, 2026, Plaintiff is authorized to take prejudgment possession of the Subject Property no earlier than August 23, 2026.

A party “may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.)

“If the motion is opposed by a defendant or occupant within 30 days of service, the court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hearing on the motion, if the court finds each of the following:

(A) The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain.

(B) The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.

(C) There is an overriding need for the plaintiff to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited.

(D) The hardship that the plaintiff will suffer if possession is denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the defendant or occupant that would be caused by the granting of the order of possession.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.410(d)(2).)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not satisfy the “overriding need” or “substantial hardship” elements required for prejudgment possession under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410(d)(2). The parties appear to be in agreement that the timeline of the project as issue in this matter has been extended. Plaintiff admits that the certification deadline was moved to January 19, 2027, and thus requests that the effective date of the Court’s previous order be extended to November 30, 2026. The change in timeline does not alter the Court’s previous findings regarding overriding need, substantial hardship, or the balance of hardships. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.410(d)(2).) It merely changes the date by which possession is required.

Defendant’s argument regarding an “urgent” overriding need is not persuasive. A showing of urgency is required for an emergency order of possession that seeks possession earlier than permitted under the notice requirements because of, e.g., “a utility’s urgent need to protect the public’s health and safety[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.410(e)(1); Israni v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 621, 632 [“If the condemning authority wishes to obtain possession earlier than permitted under the 30 or 90–day notice requirements, it must make an additional showing that it has an urgent need for possession[.]”].) That is unlike the situation here since Plaintiff is not seeking to obtain possession before the required 30 day notice period on an emergency basis under subdivision (e)(1). Defendants’ cite to Israni is inapposite because that case discusses “an ex parte application . . . for an [order of immediate possession] authorizing [Plaintiff] to take possession of the Property . . . three days after notice of the order is served[.]” (Israni v. Superior Court, supra 88 Cal.App.4th at 629.) In addition, Defendants quotation of section 1255.420 is taken out of context regarding timing and it is also misplaced. That section was repealed in 2006 by Senate Bill 1210, Section 4. (2006 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 594 (S.B. 1210, SEC. 4) (WEST).)

CV-26-004906 – FLORY, RYAN T vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration – DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel binding arbitration appears premature.

The instant case is a lemon law action filed after January 1, 2025. Therefore, it appears the action is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. Section 871.26 requires, inter alia, that “[w]ithin 90 days after filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall schedule a mediation to occur within 150 days after filing of the answer or other responsive pleading with a court-appointed or private mediator.” Except for initial disclosures and the initial depositions, “all other discovery shall be stayed until mediation is concluded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant may re-file its motion to compel after mediation is concluded.

PR-26-000073 – IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST – Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - CONTINUED to August 26, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to August 26, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related probate discovery motion on calendar that day.

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

CV-22-001828 – LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Lupe Longoria to Submit an IME – DROPPED. 

Defendant has failed to file or serve the moving papers.

CV-25-003899 – ISAAK, LIAM vs GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.’s Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Set One Special Interrogatories – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Plaintiff Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Set One Requests for Production of Documents – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court finds the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts to be insufficient under the circumstances presented herein. Specifically, the Court notes the absence of any further meet-and-confer efforts after Defendant’s service of further responses to the subject discovery.  Further, the Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve or substantially narrow the subject issues if genuine efforts to meet and confer are undertaken in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, 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 October 9, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The Court believes the issues herein are amenable to informal resolution. Toward that end, the  parties are reminded that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) Therefore, the Court expects the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another and to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

CV-25-008202 – RUIZ, VICTORIA REYNA MENDOZA vs MERLIN PLASTICS CALIFORNIA INC – Defendants and Cross-Complainants Merlin Plastics California, Inc. and Peninsula Plastics Recycling, Inc.’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement – DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(b) contemplates the submission of evidentiary support for the information asserted in the instant motion, and moving defendants have failed to submit a supporting declaration or other evidence herein.

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

CV-23-004243 – SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

The Court has reviewed the declaration of Nicole Bench, Case Manager for ILYM Group, Inc., concerning administration of the class action settlement. The declaration establishes that settlement funds have been distributed pursuant to the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment entered February 3, 2026. The declaration further establishes that settlement checks were issued on March 25, 2026, and that settlement class members have until September 21, 2026, to negotiate those checks. As of August 11, 2026, 152 checks totaling $61,637.09 remained outstanding. Under the Final Approval Order and Judgment, any funds represented by uncashed checks are to be distributed to the Court-approved cy pres recipient, Jessica's House.

The Court finds that a final accounting cannot yet be completed because the check-cashing period has not expired. The amount of residual funds, if any, remains unknown, and no cy pres distribution has yet occurred. Good cause therefore exists to continue the compliance hearing.

Accordingly:

        1. The final accounting hearing is CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

        2. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., shall file and serve a supplemental declaration: (a) confirming expiration of the settlement check-cashing period; (b) identifying the total number and dollar amount of checks negotiated and uncashed; (c) confirming the amount of residual funds, if any, distributed to Jessica's House pursuant to the settlement and Final Approval Judgment; and (d) confirming completion of all settlement administration and distributions.

        3. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, Class Counsel shall file and serve an amended proposed judgment and proposed final accounting order that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.5 and includes all information required by Government Code section 68520, including but not limited to: (a) the identity of the cy pres recipient; (b) the amount of residual funds distributed to the cy pres recipient(s); (c) the total amount distributed to class members; (d) the total amount of attorney fees and costs awarded; and (e) any other information required for transmission to the Judicial Council pursuant to Government Code section 68520.

The Court retains jurisdiction to supervise implementation of the settlement and distribution of residual settlement funds as provided in the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

CV-24-000847 – ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Person Most Knowledgeable – CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Inspect Property – CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect Vehicle – CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

a-c) The Court has reviewed the moving papers and concludes that the disputes appear capable of informal resolution through further meaningful meet-and-confer efforts.

The Court finds the requested discovery is generally directed toward issues central to the action and that substantial overlap exists among the requested inspections, physical evidence examinations, PMQ depositions, and related document production. The Court further finds that the record reflects ongoing communications between counsel concerning scheduling and coordination of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES all three motions to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am Department 24.

No later than 10 days from the date of this hearing, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in good faith, either in person or by videoconference, concerning:

        1. Dates for inspection of the subject property;

        2. Dates for inspection of the subject vehicle and end-sign assembly;

        3. Dates for PMQ depositions;

        4. A schedule for PMQ-related document production; and

        5. Any remaining issues that may be resolved without further court intervention.

No later than five court days before the continued hearing, counsel shall file a joint status report advising the Court whether the motions have been resolved in whole or in part and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.

The Court reserves ruling on the merits of the motions and all requests for sanctions.

CV-25-009148 – PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Henry Ernest Perez and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,430.00 – CONTINUED to September 9, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

The Court has reviewed the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supporting declarations. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant's entitlement to take Plaintiff's deposition and expressly acknowledges that Defendant is entitled to that discovery.

The parties' dispute instead appears to center on deposition scheduling, the sufficiency of the parties' meet-and-confer efforts, and whether sanctions are warranted. Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to provide any available dates despite multiple requests over several months. Plaintiff contends he timely objected to two unilaterally noticed depositions, invited further meet-and-confer efforts, and that defense counsel never attempted a telephonic conference before seeking Court intervention.

The Court finds additional meet-and-confer efforts are appropriate before ruling on the motion and sanctions request.

Accordingly:

        1. The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to September 9, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

        2. No later than ten days from the date of this hearing, counsel shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the scheduling of Plaintiff's deposition. The meet-and-confer shall occur by videoconference or in person.

        3. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff shall provide specific dates on which he is available for deposition, and counsel shall make reasonable efforts to select a mutually agreeable deposition date.

        4. If the parties are able to schedule and complete Plaintiff's deposition before the continued hearing date, Defendant shall promptly notify the Court whether the motion is withdrawn or whether any issues remain for determination.

        5. If any disputes remain, the parties shall file supplemental declarations, not exceeding five pages each, no later than five court days before the continued hearing. The supplemental declarations shall address: (a) the meet-and-confer efforts undertaken after issuance of this order; (b) whether a deposition date was provided and/or selected; (c) whether the deposition has occurred; and (d) the parties' respective positions regarding monetary sanctions.

The Court reserves ruling on both the motion to compel and Defendant's request for monetary sanctions pending completion of the additional meet-and-confer process.

CV-26-000068 – JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO – a) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED.

a-d) Before addressing the merits of these demurrers and motions to strike, the Court has questions regarding the sufficiency of service on the Plaintiff. The proofs of service reflect service solely by electronic transmission. Plaintiff is in propria persona. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(c)(3) and rule 2.251 of the California Rules of Court, a self-represented plaintiff must affirmatively consent to electronic service. The act of electronic filing alone is insufficient to manifest that consent.

The Court was unable to locate in the court file for this case a Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address (Judicial Council form EFS-005-CV) signed and filed by the Plaintiff or any other document filed by the Plaintiff affirmatively providing consent to electronic service. It therefore seeks clarification from the Moving Parties as to what written authorization the Plaintiff has given them regarding an agreement to electronic service.

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

 

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