Civil Tentative Rulings

July 31, 2026

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

CV-23-002950 - CAVALRY SPV I LLC vs CANALS, JOSEPH - Plaintiff's Motion for Setting Aside Dismissal and Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED and unopposed.

Defendant was properly served and did not oppose this motion. On its face, the motion appears meritorious

CV-24-006949 - CORTEZ, ROBERTO vs NEWLY WEDS FOODS LLC - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to December 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

The parties are currently in compliance and the next date is to determine if delivery was made to the unclaimed property fund.

CV-25-007444 - SOFAIR, TONY vs SALAZAR, SALVADOR, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

The alleged breakdown in communication appears not to be with Plaintiff himself.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-23-004326 - WIGGINS, JOSHUA vs COLEMAN, TIMOTHY - Defendant’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena of Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner -  GRANTED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s opposing declaration has not been authenticated herein and appears to consist of inadmissible hearsay. In addition, Exhibit 4 likewise appears to consist of inadmissible hearsay and appears subject to exclusion pursuant to the provisions of Evid. Code § 1152 et seq.

Based on the Court’s review of the papers herein, as well as the Court’s prior ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition testimony from Ms. Garner in August 2024, the Court finds that the subpoena for Ms. Garner’s trial testimony is subject to being quashed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.)

The Court finds that the bulk of the testimony Plaintiff seeks to elicit from Ms. Garner is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the provisions of Evid. Code § 1152 et seq. Moreover, while the Court recognizes that there is no blanket prohibition in the law against Ms. Garner being called to testify as a witness regarding non-privileged matters in this context, it appears from the evidence presented herein that many, if not all, non-privileged matters contemplated by her testimony would be subject to exclusion on foundational and/or hearsay grounds.

Therefore, the Court is unconvinced that Ms. Garner’s testimony would carry any probative value herein; furthermore, any potential in that regard is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time and/or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Evid. Code § 352.)

CV-24-003365 - NEWSON, THAIYANA vs RAV TRANSPORT INC - Plaintiff's Motion for an Order for Evidentiary Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence - DENIED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish foundational facts that are necessary to support a request for sanctions in this context, including that the subject evidence is no longer in existence and that Defendant willfully destroyed it.

CV-25-011391 - DOE, JANE vs CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Ceres Unified School District's Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents - GRANTED.

The Court notes that the parties have narrowed the dispute herein to issues surrounding the production of Defendant Barba’s personnel file. As the Court understands the existing state of the dispute, Defendant is not opposed, in principle, to producing the personnel file but seeks to redact certain discrete items of information and to be relieved of the obligation to produce a privilege log for redacted or withheld materials.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the production of the subject materials herein. With regard to the defense’s specific request regarding redactions and provision of a privilege log, the Court finds that the parties’ stipulated protective order herein already contains an agreed procedure for handling purported confidential materials and information. In light of this, the Court declines to impose additional restrictions on this discovery absent an agreement by the parties.

Further, the defense has provided no authority relieving it of the applicability of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1) herein. Since the defense clearly intends to claim the application of privilege(s) to support the withholding of certain responsive materials, the Court finds that a privilege log should be provided so that Plaintiff’s counsel can sufficiently evaluate the merits of the privilege claim(s).

Lastly, the Court notes that the parties have had meet-and-confer communications with regard to the scope of the privilege claims and the affected documents, and the parties are strongly encouraged to continue such efforts to determine if the nature of the privilege(s) claimed and the materials being withheld is amenable to an agreement disposing of the need for a privilege log under the circumstances.

UD-24-000777 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs WANGUN, GWEN - Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees/Costs - CONTINUED to October 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 23.

This matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to October 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 23, to be heard with the related motion for attorneys’ fees on calendar that day.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***

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***