Civil Tentative Rulings

September 10, 2026

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

CV-24-008226 – MEDINA, JOHN, Jr vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC – Defendant Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint Against Destination Anywhere Inc. – DENIED without prejudice.

Given Destination Anywhere’s prior appearances in this case and the extensive litigation on issues involved in the cross-complaint, the Court declines to hear the motion without service on it under the “in furtherance of justice” provision of Code Civ. Proc. Section 473.

CV-25-000545 – JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs ROJAS, NIOMI – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment; in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial – DENIED.

Plaintiff now concedes that mandatory relief is unavailable. (See: Noceti v. Whorton (2014) 224 Cal.App.4^th 1062, 1067.)

Plaintiff does not offer a case for the proposition that the motion to vacate judgment may be made post-trial, but argues that the legislature would exclude that if they wanted to.

However, a motion for new trial is governed expressly by Code Civ. Proc. section 657 and Rule of Court 3.1600. In this case, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant a motion for new trial given the failure of timely notice. There are no cases which support a new trial other than under the new trial statute. And even if timely notice had been given, the Court has no basis under that code section to grant a new trial.

Consider the effect if this were allowed: After a trial in which counsel fails to secure a key witness due to excusable neglect, they would be entitled to a new trial or a vacatur of the judgment as a matter of right. This cannot possibly be the standard; as applied in this case it might not lead to any injustice, but as a principle it could not be enforced.

The Court does not reach the issue of whether failure to provide any admissible evidence is excusable neglect.

CV-25-001402 – ALEXANDER, STEVEN vs BURLYS CALIFORNIA BISTRO INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees – GRANTED. b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Judgment – GRANTED as modified and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civ. Code § 1717.  Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds that the time expended and the hourly fees claimed are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover to $11,543.75 in attorney’s fees from Defendant Gaynor.

Gaynor argues she has no ability to pay, which may be accurate, but is not actionable at this stage.

b) Burly’s is the defaulted corporation, and judgment will be entered against them. The Court proposes a separate judgment against Burly’s as attorney fees would be limited to the default schedule.

CV-26-004874 – ANHAR, MICHAEL N vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against City of Turlock to Enjoin its Unauthorized Public Disclosure of Petitioner’s Constitutionally Protected Personally Identifiable Information – GRANTED.

The letter to Anhar indicating a lifetime waiver of some privacy rights had already occurred was not ideal, and the City’s choices in their response are appropriate, though I place no blame on Petitioner for reacting as he did to that assertion. This was not rationally a meet-and-confer issue, and the City’s position was facially unreasonable at best. The City’s current position is more nearly correct.

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

CV-25-008681 – CEDARBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs WALZ, MONTE RICHARD – Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt – GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and unopposed.

On July 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed an application for order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt of the Court’s March 19, 2026 Default Judgment (“Default Judgment”). There is no opposition on file.

The Default Judgment ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiff reasonable access to Defendant’s condominium unit for the purpose of inspecting, restoring, and completing all necessary repairs to the fire alarm system. Defendant was ordered to coordinate with Plaintiff to provide access dates and times within five calendar days. Defendant has not done so.

Plaintiff served the Default Judgment on Defendant by mail on March 19, 2026. On July 22, 2026, Plaintiff mailed a letter to Defendant requesting that Defendant make the unit available on certain days. Plaintiff also contacted Defendant via email. Defendant did not respond or otherwise comply with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the application is GRANTED in part. The Court finds sufficient grounds to institute contempt proceedings and SETS for October 27, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22 an Order to Show Cause directing Monte Richard Walz to appear and show cause, if any exists, why he should not be adjudged in contempt for violation of the Court’s order to provide Plaintiff reasonable access to the condominium unit. (See Crawford v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 156, 159, reh'g denied and opinion modified (July 12, 1989).)

The application is DENIED in part as to the attorneys’ fees award. Civil money judgments are enforceable through a writ of execution, not contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 699.510.)

The Court expresses no opinion regarding whether contempt ultimately will be established. The ruling is limited to whether Plaintiff has shown sufficient grounds for issuance of an OSC. 

 

Plaintiff must file a proof of service at least five court days before the OSC date showing personal service of the signed order on the alleged contemnor no later than 16 court days before the hearing date. Defendant may file and serve a written opposition to the Order to Show Cause no later than nine court days before the OSC date. If an opposition is filed, Plaintiff may file and serve a reply brief no later than five court days before the OSC date. Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.   

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

CV-24-000957 – ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court notes that counsel’s declaration appears to demonstrate insufficient efforts to confirm the client’s current address. In addition, the Court has questions with regard to the intended scope of the instant motion, which appears to be reference only Ms. Alicea-Romero’s representation, and the status of Ms. Castro’s claim.

Counsel shall appear at the hearing prepared to discuss the above-referenced issues with the Court.

CV-24-003258 – ROSE, NORMA MAE vs CITY OF OAKDALE – Defendant City of Oakdale’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court requires more time to review this matter.

CV-24-005034 – DIAMOND, KAREN vs AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Judgment Entered in Favor of Americold Logistics Pursuant to CCP 663 or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial – DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion is not proper under Code Civ. Proc. § 663, as it fails to seek entry of a “new and different judgment,” as envisioned by that statute, and instead seeks to vacate the entry of judgment and return the case for trial. (See, e.g. Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203-203.)

With regard to Plaintiff’s alternative request for a new trial, after revisiting the parties’  arguments and proffered evidence in connection with the motion for summary judgment in conjunction with the issues raised by Plaintiff herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 657. As to Plaintiff’s argument based on UMFs 7, 10, 11, and 12, these merely restated Plaintiff’s allegations in the case, which are insufficient to create a material factual dispute on summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) In addition, Plaintiff’s particular allegations regarding Defendant’s post-incident liability appear to have been negated by the evidence in support of UMF 13, which was undisputed by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court again concludes that Defendant met its initial burden on summary judgment herein.

The Court further concludes that the defense’s evidentiary objections and opposition to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice were well-taken, and its rulings sustaining the objections and denying judicial notice are supported by the law.  In reviewing this issue, however, the Court notes that it inadvertently failed to enter an order identifying the specific grounds for its rulings in this regard. Therefore, the Court will sign the defense’s proposed order on objections, nunc pro tunc to the date of its ruling on the motion for summary judgment (6-16-26).

CV-25-004732 – SECREASE, TAKETHIA vs WENDYS OF THE PACIFIC INC – Defendant Wendy’s of the Pacific Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff, Takethia Secrease’s Complaint – DENIED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant’s Separate Statement identifies only one issue for determination; therefore, it appears that grounds for summary adjudication have not been asserted herein.

With regard to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, met the initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment based on the submitted evidence.  The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).)  The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden in this regard and has demonstrated the existence of material factual disputes, at a minimum, with regard to UMF 11, 24, 25, 26, and 27 and Plaintiff’s additional facts. 

In addition, the Court declines to disregard the challenged factual assertions contained in Plaintiff’s supporting declaration in accordance with Defendant’s argument that these exceed the scope of the pleadings herein on the grounds. Pleadings are liberally construed (Code Civ. Proc. § 452), and the challenged factual assertions herein merely elaborate on Plaintiff’s claim involving the same fundamental instrumentality identified in the pleadings, i.e., the accumulation of liquid on the floor of the restaurant . (See, e.g. Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 226.) 

Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence are not submitted in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court declines to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)  

CV-25-011555 – CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. c) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. d) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-d) In view of Plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal from her representation, these matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. Defense counsel shall make genuine efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff, in pro per, with regard to the issues presented herein and shall file a supplemental declaration describing such efforts and the results no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

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

 

CV-24-000245 – CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY INC vs EDMONSONESCOLAR, DEBRA – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment – DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court finds that Defendant’s motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Notably, (1) the motion is not brought within 6 months of the entry of default against Defendant; (2) Defendant does not allege any mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect; and (3) is not supported by Defendant’s Proposed Answer.

As to the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, the motion is timely brought based on Defendant’s declaration as to when she received actual notice of this action, though not within a reasonable time. In addition, Defendant’s declaration does not attest to said lack of actual notice not being caused by Defendant’s inexcusable neglect.  Also, the motion is not supported by Defendant’s required Proposed Answer.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby denied without prejudice.

CV-26-000239 – BELL, WILLIAM vs BENHAM, CHRISTOPHER – Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service by Publication – DENIED, without prejudice.

This motion was filed on 5/19/26 requesting service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on Defendant Jesse Medlock by publication alleging inability to serve Defendant despite multiple diligent attempts. The motion is not supported by any declaration by Plaintiff or by any affidavit of diligence. That aside, the Court file indicates that Plaintiff thereafter amended his Complaint which was filed with the Court on 6/26/26.

The Court file also indicates that Plaintiff attempted service on Defendant Jesse Medlock, the same Defendant in respect of which Plaintiff now seeks service by publication, with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Summons by mail with a Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt of 6/26/26 per the proof of service on file. However, the Completed Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt are not attached to the proof of service There is also no indication that Defendant Medlock has executed and returned the signature portion of said Notice of Acknowledgment. Therefore, service is not complete as to said Defendant Medlock.

Notably, per Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50 (a), “A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article”.

However, to the extent that the motion seeks publication as to the Complaint, which has now been overtaken by Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and it appears that other effective avenues exist for service on Defendant, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby 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***