February 11, 2026

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

CV-23-003251 – SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Judgment – GRANTED, and unopposed.  The Court will execute the proposed amended judgment submitted by Petitioner.

CV-24-000890 – SYNCHRONY BANK vs VEGA, ARRIANNA- Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Dismissal- GRANTED, and unopposed.  The judgment entered on February 28, 2025, is hereby VACATED and the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.

CV-25-000015 – CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs ELY, JASON – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration – GRANTED and unopposed. The Court vacates all future dates and sets the matter for a Case Status Review on June 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

CV-25-005993 – KAADY EQUIPMENT CO vs SINGH, RJ – Cross-Defendant Kaady Equipment CO.’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint – SUSTAINED as to the negligence cause of action without leave to amend.

A breach of a contractual duty is not generally subject to tort law. (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal. 4^th 543.)

The economic loss rule appears to apply. Cross-complainant cites to no cases indicating the economic loss rule does not apply to normal construction disputes (as opposed to architects or land surveyors). Cases cited for legal malpractice and other professional malpractice are inapposite.

In this case, the alleged harm done is entirely due to an alleged contractual breach, and does not implicate any established exception.

Cross-complainant offers no suggestion that leave to amend will resolve this issue.

UD-25-001322 – LAZCANO, MANUEL vs ZAMORA, EBERARDO – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED. The Court was informed at the last hearing that the matter had settled, but has no documentation. The Court anticipates dismissing this case at this hearing or in the near future.

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

CV-25-010287 – MCDONALD, VENUS vs CITY OF MODESTO CITY COUNCIL – Petitioner’s Petition of Writ of Administrative Mandate – CONTINUED to March 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. 

On February 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a request to continue the hearing on this matter until her motion to augment the administrative record is heard on March 4, 2026. The Court was unable to locate a proof of service for the request. Nonetheless, the Court chooses to CONTINUE the hearing on the petition to March 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, as it appears that the motion to augment the administrative record should indeed be heard before the Court considers the merits of the petition. Please note that the Court does not expect the March 4 hearing on the petition to be substantive. Rather, it will discuss the next hearing date with the parties at that time, the length of the continuance being dependent on the Court’s ruling on the motion to augment the record.

The Court asks Petitioner to remember that she is responsible for complying with all applicable procedural requirements for any motion or petition, including the filing of a properly completed proof of service (signed by an uninterested party) at least five court days prior to any motion hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).)

CV-25-008401 – ZAVALA ADOLFO AGUILAR vs UC FRAMING CORP – Defendants UC Construction, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Christine Fitzpatrick, and Joseph Thomas Fitzpatrick's Demurrer to Plaintiff Adolfo Aguilar Zavala's Complaint - OVERRULED.

The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an employment relationship under the relevant law for pleading purposes. In this context, the precise contours of an employment relationship depend on a careful factual inquiry, as no one factor is decisive. (See, e.g., St. Myers v. Dignity Health (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 301, 311.) Therefore, the determination of this issue will likely turn on the submission of extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate at the pleading stage.

Demurring Defendants are directed to file an answer or other responsive pleading within 15 days.

PR-25-001008 – IN THE MATTER THE TRAMMELL 1998 TRUST DATED JUNE 11, 1998, AS AMENDED-THE SURVIVORS TRUST - Respondent’s Demurrer to Petition – OVERRULED.

Background

Petitioner Wyatt Trammell is the Trustee of The Trammell 1998 Trust Dated June 11, 1998, as Amended—The Survivor’s Trust (“the Trust”) and has filed this petition in that capacity. The petition, brought under Probate Code § 850, alleges that Respondent—while acting in a fiduciary capacity over Decedent’s books, records, and finances—concealed the existence and value of the Schwab IRA (approx. $449,102.33) and procured Decedent’s signature on only the last page of an eight‑page beneficiary designation form, leading him to believe she was merely being authorized to assist with account matters.

The Petition further alleges Decedent took out two high‑interest loans totaling $200,000 (payoff approx. $211,720.54) because he believed he lacked liquid assets, and that Respondent’s conduct deprived him of the use and benefit of the IRA during life.

For purposes of demurrer, these allegations must be accepted as true and are sufficient to plead a deprivation of property rights and financial harm during Decedent’s lifetime.

Petitioner’s Standing

Probate Code § 850 allows “any interested person” to bring a § 850 petition. Petitioner is seeking to unwind a beneficiary designation naming Respondent Brianna Trammell as the designated beneficiary of the decedent’s IRA account. Petitioner alleges that Respondent abused her relationship with Decedent to obtain his signature and then lied to the Decedent about his account balance, at the expense of the Trust.

According to the petition, the prior named beneficiaries on the account predeceased the decedent. Under the terms of the Account Holder Authorization, if no named beneficiaries survived the Decedent, the account was to be paid to the estate. (See Pet., Exh. G.) Pursuant to the terms of the Decedent’s will, the Trust receives the Decedent’s entire estate. (See Pet., Exh. C.) The Trustee has thus made a prima facie showing that he is the beneficiary of the Decedent’s will and therefore takes if the transfer at issue is cancelled or revoked. Consequently, the Trustee qualifies as “an interested person” at this stage of the proceedings. (See Prob. Code §§ 48(a); 850; cf. Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 828.) Under the same logic, should any elder abuse claim be successful, the estate—and therefore, the Trustee—would benefit.

Failure to (Otherwise) State Sufficient Facts

At the demurrer stage the Court does not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes. The issue is whether the petition alleges facts which, assumed true and liberally construed, state a claim.

Here, the petition alleges more than a bare change of beneficiary designation. It alleges Respondent acted in a fiduciary capacity, concealed the existence/value of a substantial asset from an elder while he was seeking liquid assets, procured a signature on a form allegedly without disclosing its effect, and caused or substantially contributed to financial harm during Decedent’s lifetime (including incurrence of high‑interest debt).

Construing the petition as a whole and drawing reasonable inferences in Petitioner’s favor, these allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim for financial elder abuse.

Respondent’s challenges (including alternative explanations regarding taxes/loan choices and whether Respondent really could have concealed the IRA) raise factual issues not properly resolved on demurrer.

The demurrer based on failure to state sufficient facts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e) is therefore OVERRULED.

Uncertainty

The demurrer for uncertainty pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(f) is likewise OVERRULED, as the petition is not unintelligible and adequately identifies the assets, conduct, and alleged harm.

Objections

Respondent to file objections to the petition within 15 days, or the Court may deem the right to do so waived pursuant to Rule 7.801 of the California Rules of Court.

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

CV-21-003804 – SINGH, SIMARJIT vs MANN TRUCK & TRAILER REPAIR INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, and for Monetary Sanctions as to Nirmal Mann- GRANTED, and unopposed.  b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions, and for Monetary Sanctions as to Nirmal Mann – GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $260 are awarded against Defendant Nirmal Mann and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

b) 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 further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $260 are awarded against Defendant Nirmal Mann and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

CV-22-001828 – LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO - Plaintiff Oscar Longoria's Motion to Compel Defendant City of Modesto's Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Four and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,560.00 – GRANTED.

Having reviewed the joint status report filed on February 5, 2026, and considered the positions of the parties set forth therein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set Four, Nos. 68 and 69. Defendant shall provide verified code-compliant responses and produce any responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control to Plaintiff within 15 days of service of the signed order regarding this motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(h), Plaintiff is awarded sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,560. Defendant is to pay the sanctions to Wilshire Law Firm.

The Court finds that Defendant’s opposition to this motion was not substantially justified. The argument that documents are “irrelevant” is disfavored; the scope of discovery is broader than trial relevance. (See Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 [“The State's claim that discovery is not warranted because the evidence disclosed would not itself be admissible is untenable. It is settled that admissibility is not prerequisite to discovery.”].) “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [emphasis added].)

Moreover, it is seldom (if ever) the purview of the Responding Party to determine what is or is not relevant.

Furthermore, Defendant’s argument that it already produced documents responsive to Request No. 68 belies its contention that the request is “vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible.” Likewise, its statement of position on Request No. 69 undermines the similar objection that it made in its respective response.

A new proposed order is required. The current proposed order improperly awards sanctions against Defendant’s counsel as well as Defendant. But Defendant’s counsel was not included in the notice of motion and motion; therefore, it would be improper to grant sanctions against him. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a new proposed order that conforms to this ruling within five court days.

CV-24-004267 – VANN SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD – Defendant Sutter Valley Hospitals’ Motion to Bifurcate – DENIED.

By this motion, Defendant Sutter Valley Hospitals (“Moving Defendant”) seeks an order under Code of Civil Procedure § 598 bifurcating trial such that Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims are tried first, with Plaintiff’s negligent credentialing claim (the Elam claim) to be tried only if the jury finds malpractice. Plaintiff opposes, contending the motion relies on a superseded pleading, the issues are factually intertwined, and bifurcation would increase rather than reduce trial inefficiencies.

Code of Civil Procedure § 598 authorizes bifurcation when it would promote witness convenience, the ends of justice, or the efficient and economical management of litigation. The decision lies within the Court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. (See Orange County Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 252, 353.)

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the motion is procedurally stale. It relies on the First Amended Complaint filed April 15, 2025, but the operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed December 10, 2025. As Plaintiff correctly argues, a request for bifurcation must be evaluated in light of the operative complaint’s allegations and theories of liability. The Court therefore considers the motion on that basis.

Bifurcation is disfavored where it would create duplication of evidence or where the issues cannot be cleanly separated. (See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888 [stating duplication of proof defeats the purpose of bifurcation].) The record here reflects substantial factual overlap between Plaintiff’s malpractice and negligent credentialing theories.

Plaintiff’s showing demonstrates that the same witnesses—including treating physicians, hospital administrators, and experts—would testify on issues relevant to both phases. Likewise, much of the same evidence, such as medical records, deposition testimony, and information regarding the hospital’s knowledge of Dr. Altman’s history, would need to be introduced twice. The Court finds this overlap significant and not reasonably avoidable.

Moving Defendant argues that Elam claims become moot absent a malpractice finding and thus bifurcation would conserve time. While correct in principle, this assumes the negligent credentialing claim can be tried entirely independently. Plaintiff persuasively argues that the jury’s understanding of the medical negligence issues is intertwined with the institutional context surrounding Dr. Altman’s credentialing and the hospital’s knowledge. Given this interdependence, bifurcation would likely extend—not shorten—the overall trial by requiring re-presentation of evidence.

Moving Defendant also contends bifurcation is necessary to prevent the introduction of prejudicial “character” evidence about Dr. Altman. However, as Plaintiff notes, such evidence may be admissible for valid purposes, including foreseeability and notice. Any potential prejudice can be adequately addressed through in limine rulings and limiting instructions. Structural severance is not warranted on this basis.

For the above reasons, the Court finds that bifurcation would not promote efficiency, witness convenience, or the ends of justice. The motion to bifurcate is therefore DENIED.

In reaching this ruling, the Court disregarded the “response” filed by Drs. Altman, Yang, and Arroyo, and Gould Medical Group. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this filing was unauthorized and improper.

CV-25-009934 – OMARI, SHAH vs SINGH, SARJIT – Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000011 – JONES, HARVEY vs JACKSON, NICHOLAS – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons - GRANTED.

Based on the moving papers, it appears that service of the summons and complaint may have been defective. The Court was unable to locate an opposition in the court file. Therefore, Defendant’s prima facie showing of defective service is unchallenged. Consequently, it appears that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and the motion is GRANTED.

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

CV-22-004332 – ARNOLD, KIMBLY vs STEARNS LENDING SERVICES LLC – Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint –CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

Due to issues with the Court’s calendar, this matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to Friday, February 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-001822 – NAITAMAR, SELMANE vs NAITAMAR, HAJER – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

 

Good cause existing, Catherine Delcin Esq’ s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant /Cross Complainant Assia Benhacene is hereby granted. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362

 

The Court’s order relieving Counsel shall not take effect until proof of service of same on the client. Given the upcoming hearings, Counsel shall expeditiously serve Defendant with said order.

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 for Department 19***