Civil Tentative Rulings

October 13, 2026

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

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

CV-24-010714 – CERVANTEZ, YENI ALEJANDRA CORTEZ vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Defendant, City of Turlock’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Discovery Responses and Request for Issue and Evidence Sanctions in the Alternative – CONTINUED to November 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Defendant submitted a declaration stating that the parties are working towards resolving the discovery dispute and requesting a continuance to after October 30, 2026. 

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to November 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Moving party to file and serve at least five court days before the hearing either a notice of withdrawal or a declaration describing any narrowing of the issues.

CV-26-007801 – In Re GONZALEZ, MICHEL – Petitioner’s Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights by and between Michel Gonzalez and Mic-Bry8, LLC Pursuant to California Insurance Code 10134, ET SEQ. – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has reviewed the September 28, 2026 Amended Declaration of Michel Gonzalez. The proposed transfer appears to be “fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest.” (Ins. Code, § 10139.5(b).) The Court would like to hear from Ms. Gonzalez regarding her understanding of the terms of the agreement. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5(a).)

If the petition is granted, moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days.

PR-25-000323 – Estate of FARLEY, WALLACE ALLAN – Objector’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records or in the Alternative for a Protective Order; and for Sanctions Against Samantha Ann Farley – CONTINUED to November 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to November 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the petition on calendar that day. Moving Party is directed to file and serve no later than October 23, 2026, a status report clarifying whether this is still an active dispute.

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

CV-24-004267 – VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD – Defendant Robert J. Altman, M.D. and the Gould Medical Group, Inc. Motion to Bifurcate – WITHDRAWN pursuant to notice filed October 5, 2026.

CV-25-000643 – TORRES, DANIEL MARTINEZ vs JOES TRAVEL PLAZA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint – GRANTED.

California has a policy of great liberality in permitting amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473(a)(1), 576; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Although Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading within the time allowed by the Court’s March 10, 2026, ruling, and has not adequately explained that delay, delay alone is not a sufficient basis for denying leave to amend absent a showing of prejudice to the opposing party. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047-1048; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-490.)

Defendants have not demonstrated cognizable prejudice. No trial date has been set, the proposed amendment arises from the same October 18, 2022, service transaction already at issue in this action, and Defendants have not shown any loss of evidence, unavailability of witnesses, or other impairment of their ability to defend. The expense of litigating prior pleading challenges does not, without more, constitute prejudice sufficient to warrant denial of leave.

Further, it is not clear on this record that the proposed causes of action are futile. Defendants’ challenges to the legal sufficiency of the proposed claims are more appropriately addressed by demurrer or motion to strike directed to the amended pleading. (Kittredge, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.) Nothing in this ruling precludes Defendants from challenging any cause of action in the Second Amended Complaint by appropriate motion.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the Second Amended Complaint, in the form attached as Exhibit A to the motion, within ten (10) days.

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 – HEARING REQUIRED. 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 – HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. d) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-d) The Court’s September 10, 2026, order required Defendant’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration regarding meet and confer efforts “no later than” Tuesday, October 6.  Upon review of the Court’s file on Friday, October 9, no such declaration is present.   Counsel shall appear at the hearing and update the Court on the status of the discovery.  If counsel fails to do so, the Court is inclined to deny the motions and requests for sanctions due to the failure to meet and confer.

CV-26-008657 – In Re TAMASKA, SONJA – Petitioner’s Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights [Pursuant to Cal. Ins. Code 10134, ET ESQ.] – CONTINUED to October 29, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court is unable to make the findings required by Insurance Code section 10139.5 on the present record. No later than October 20, 2026, petitioner’s counsel shall file and serve a supplemental declaration and supporting documentation responding to the following questions:

1. Reconcile the 2045 payment: which annuity funds each prior transfer, what remains of the 2045 payment, and why does Ex. C show $472,000 against $322,000 in the settlement. (Both of which figures are far less than the amount of the 2045 payment the Court calculates has been sold already.)
2. Provide any qualified assignment agreement related to either annuity mentioned in the petition and supporting documentation. 
3. Show when the §10136 disclosure was delivered to Payee (DocuSign delivery or audit log).
4. Explain the $2,000 advance and confirm whether any other pre-approval payment was made.
5. Address the notice that does not state the response deadline, and who the interested parties are (including any irrevocable beneficiary).

By the same date, the Payee shall file an amended declaration under penalty of perjury responding to each of the following questions:

1. Do you understand that you are selling the right to the $120,000 payment due 6/29/2045 for $23,000, and that you will not receive that payment in 2045?
2. Did you read the disclosure statement and the contract? When did you first get the disclosure statement, and was that at least 10 days before you signed on 8/26/2026?
3. Do you understand you can still cancel before the Court approves, and do you want to go forward? Did anyone (including JGW) pressure you? Does your husband know about and agree with this sale?
4. You waived independent advice. Do you know JGW would pay for an attorney or accountant (up to $1,500) and that you could use that? Do you want that before the Court decides?
5. After this sale, which structured settlement payments do you still have coming, and when? Have you double-checked your understanding with the annuity companies?
6. Your declaration says you will keep receiving “substantial payments.” What are they/when will they be received?
7. How exactly will the $23,000 be spent (rent, debts, moving, other)? What are the balances on each debt?
8. What was the $2,000 advance? Who paid it, when, and is it part of the $23,000?
9. Where is the home sale: listing price, offers, mortgage balance, arrears, and expected equity? What is the rent on the new home?
10. What are you and your husband each earning now? What is the status of his job search and equipment sales? What does the monthly budget look like after the move?
11. Where did the money from the 9/2025 ($38,000) and 2/2026 ($60,000) transfers go?
12. Were you satisfied with the earlier transfers? Why do you need money again less than eight months after the last one?
13. Did you shop with any other company? What was JGW’s first offer?

Relevant supporting documents shall be attached.

The Payee and a representative of Petitioner with personal knowledge of the transaction shall be prepared to appear at the continued hearing if necessary. The Court reserves ruling on the Petition.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-26-000920 – NIXON, GARY vs CURTIS, RICHARD – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.