Civil Tentative Rulings

September 18, 2026

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

CV-25-006085 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs VASQUEZ, MATTHEW C - Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs - GRANTED in the amount of $30.

The motion is GRANTED in the amount of $30.00, reducing costs to $400. The filing and service fees requested by Defendant are allowable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.

Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice on July 23, 2026, and dismissal was entered the same day. Defendant subsequently served on Plaintiff a memorandum of costs, dated July 30, 2026. On August 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs arguing that Defendant should be awarded only $225.00 of the $430.00 requested on Defendant’s memorandum of costs.

The arbitration motion was not arguably meritorious and was based on incorrect factual assertions. As such, the $30 filing fee is taxed. Service costs are not taxable.

CV-26-006055 - THOMAS, ATORINA vs STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC - Petitioner's Verified Petition to Compel Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Arbitration and to Appoint a Single Neutral Arbitrator - GRANTED in part.

Respondent has declined to participate in the process rendering the statutory scheme unavailable. The Court randomly selected an arbitrator from the list using random.org and selects Hon. Robert E. Horn as the arbitrator. Petitioner to submit an order consistent with this ruling.

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

9000308 - EASLEY, ERIN VS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to October 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Having reviewed and considered the statement of compliance and attached declaration from the Settlement Administrator that was filed and served on September 9, 2026, the Court hereby approves the settlement fund administration thus far and authorizes payment of the remaining settlement funds in the amount of $23,947.39 to Justice Gap Fund, the cy pres recipient. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384, subdivision (b), the Court amends the judgment to reflect the payment of $23,947.39, plus any interest, to Justice Gap Fund.

The Court CONTINUES this matter to October 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for a supplemental declaration from the Settlement Administrator confirming final payment to the cy pres recipient and for an amended judgment that can be transmitted to the Judicial Council pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384.5 and that contains the information necessary for the California Research Bureau to complete the report required by section 68520 of the Government Code.

Plaintiffs to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling

CV-22-005389 - PONCE, NORMA vs SUPHERB FARMS - Compliance Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 384 - CONTINUED to October 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Per minute order dated July 10, 2025, this matter was continued for a final supplemental declaration from the Settlement Administrator confirming the transmittal of remaining funds to the California State Controller’s office. The supplemental declaration was to be filed at least five court days before the continued hearing date. However, there is no compliance declaration showing in the court file as of September 14, 2026. Consequently, this matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to October 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. A supplemental declaration is to be filed by the Settlement Administrator no later than October 13, 2026. Failure to comply with this instruction may result in the Court requiring the appearance of the Settlement Administrator at the continued hearing to provide an explanation.

CV-25-010618 - US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs FUNKHOUSER , DEANNA K - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - GRANTED, and unopposed.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Procedural Clarification

There were two Defendants named in this case: Deanna K. Funkhouser and Lyn Funkhouser aka Lyn J. Funkhouser. Only Lyn answered the complaint. On June 9, 2026, default was entered against Deanna K. Funkhouser. This motion was filed on June 12, 2026. Although the moving papers could be clearer, based on the case as a whole and the information in the proposed order, the Court reads this motion as brought against only Defendant Lyn Funkhouser. The use of the term “Defendant” herein therefore refers specifically to that Defendant unless otherwise stated.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of (1) 15 USC section 1666; and (2) 12 CFR section 202.12. Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, the request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Governing Law

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) 

Because summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the moving party’s evidence is strictly construed and the opposing party’s evidence is liberally construed, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.) However, when a motion is unopposed, and the movant’s evidence establishes each required element, summary judgment is appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).)

In addition to moving for summary judgment, “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication proceeds in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(2).)

Merits of Summary Judgment

Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(1), by presenting evidence establishing each element of its claims and demonstrating the absence of any triable issue of material fact. The undisputed evidence shows that: (1) Defendant applied to Plaintiff for a credit card account and entered into a written credit card account agreement with Plaintiff (SUF No. 1); (2) Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the Cardmember Agreement (SUF No. 2); (3) The card was used to make purchases, and Plaintiff complied with its obligations under the Agreement by paying vendors for all charges that were made on Defendant's account. (SUF No. 3); (4) Plaintiff maintained a computerized account of credits and charges (SUF No. 4); (5) Plaintiff has no record of any unresolved dispute regarding charges or credits related to the account (SUF No. 5); (6) Defendant defaulted in making the payments due under the terms of the cardmember agreement (SUF No. 6); (7) the last payment made on the account was on or around May 5, 2025 (SUF No. 7); and (8) Defendant owes Plaintiff a principal balance of $15,503.75 (SUF No. 8).

These undisputed facts establish the existence of a contract, Plaintiff's performance, Defendant's breach, and resulting damages, thereby entitling Plaintiff to judgment on its sole cause of action for breach of contract. (SUF Nos. 1-8.)

Defendant filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses, but no opposition to this motion was timely filed, and no opposing evidence has been presented demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c requires that the motion be granted.

Memorandum of Costs

Plaintiff has submitted a memorandum of costs that reflects costs of $1,015.22, which amount comprises $870 in filing fees and $145.22 for service of process. The total for filing fees matches the Court’s internal records, and the fees for service of process match the information on the proofs of service for the summonses.

Conclusion

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff US Bank National Association against Defendant Lyn Funkhouser aka Lyn J. Funkhouser and defaulted Defendant Deanna K. Funkhouser in the principal amount of $15,503.75, together with costs of suit in the amount of $1,015.22, for a total judgment in the amount of $16,518.97.

Summary Adjudication

In light of the Court's ruling granting summary judgment, Plaintiff's alternative request for summary adjudication is MOOT.

Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment

The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment that were submitted with the motion.

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

CV-25-012198 - DIAZ, YOLANDA vs NATALE, ESTHER - Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 405.38 - GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $4,217.32.

The Court previously found Defendant to be the prevailing party entitled to recover fees and costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38 and now exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context.

Attorney’s Fees

Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by defense counsel, as well as the Court’s experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by defense counsel herein should be reduced as follows:

2.55 billed by Colby Nicholes (CLN) on 1-27-26, 2-20-26 and 2-25-26, due to improper block billing that appears to combine recoverable and unrecoverable tasks and does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described.

1. billed by Colby Nicholes (CLN) on 2-6-26, 2-10-26, and 4-28-26 that reflects unrelated or duplicative tasks.

0.7 billed by Luis Perez (LOP) on 2-10-26, reflecting excessive time and/or duplicative tasks.

0.9 billed by Sydney Scott (SKS) on 4-28-26 and 4-28-26, reflecting unrecoverable billing for interoffice communications and excessive/duplicative tasks.

0.65 billed by William Broderick Villa (WBV) on 2-20-26, due to improper block billing that appears to combine recoverable and unrecoverable tasks and does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described.

0.6 billed attributed to paralegal billing (MPH) on 5-4-26 and 5-7-26 for tasks duplicative of attorney work on the file.

2.4 attributed to paralegal billing (MPH) throughout the pendency of the matter, reflecting administrative and/or clerical tasks.

In addition, the Court finds that the 5.0 hours claimed by Mr. Broderick Villa as “anticipated time” in connection with the instant motion appears excessive in this instance and should be reduced to 2.50 hours of recoverable time. In addition, the Court finds that such time should be awarded at the associate attorney rate of $275 per hour and has added the allowable hours in this regard to Ms. Scott’s total for lodestar purposes, below.

Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community.  (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the  community where the action is pending. (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.)  Lastly, the law provides that the trial judge is “the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49.) As a result, the Court finds that counsel’s requested rates appear to generally reflect the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County for the billers described. Therefore, the hourly rates are approved  in the amounts requested in the papers.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the moving papers in the amount of $488.82.

Summary of Award –

 

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
WBV	0.95	425	$    403.75
LOP	0.9	325	292.50
CLN	2.15	275	591.25
SKS	7.4	275	2,035.00
MPH	2.8	145	406.00
		Total Fees	3,728.50
		Costs	488.82
		AWARD	$4,217.32

CV-26-001417 - KUMAR, SUSHMA vs A&M ADMINISTRATION LLC - Defendant A&M Administration, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Civil Action - DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of an agreement to arbitrate in this instance. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) Despite the subject document’s singular use of the term “arbitrate” in the heading of the section relied on herein, the substantive provisions fail to describe an arbitration proceeding as recognized by California law. (See, e.g., Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 684–685.)

Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff voluntarily assented to binding arbitration of her claims herein as a substitute for litigation.

CV-26-003858 - CROCKER , KOBE LEE vs WATERFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, and unopposed.

Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, the Court sustains the Demurrer in its entirety. While the Court will grant leave to amend in this instance despite Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, Plaintiff is cautioned that it is his burden to demonstrate how additional factual allegations can overcome the demurrer. Therefore, future failures to oppose dispositive motions could result in Plaintiff losing the right to amend the pleading to attempt to allege additional facts to support his stated causes of action

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

CV-18-003129 - OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY - Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Motion for Protective Order - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

A party may obtain discovery by the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010

The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420

In view of Plaintiff’s prior deposition of Todd Conley, the predecessor Risk Manager of Defendant’s current Risk Manager Morgan Fiut, Ms Fiut’s recent appointment as Defendant’s Risk Manager, the likely limited personal knowledge Ms Fiut possesses regarding the information at issue, and the likely unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden that would be suffered by both Defendant and Ms. Fiut from said deposition, the Court finds that  good cause exists to issue the requested protective order in part.

Accordingly, Plaintiff may depose Ms. Fiut. However, said deposition shall be limited to matters of which Ms. Fiut possesses personal knowledge. Castaline v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 580 Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420 (a), (b) (9) and (10) ;Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, review denied.

The Court notes evidence of considerable meet and confer between Counsel and given the partial grant of the motion herein, finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420 (h).

CV-24-010302 - MONDRAGON, JOSE vs DEREK SAWYER HEATING COOLING PLUMBING & ELECTRICAL LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - GRANTED.  

Based on a review of the moving papers, Court finds good cause to order as follows:

The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

10-5-26	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
10-19-26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
12-31-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
1-8-27	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for February 2, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-25-008680 - DEERE & COMPANY vs TORRES, ANGEL - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions to Defendant Angel Torres and for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court’s motion.

In view of the untimeliness of Defendant’s Opposition, and the lack of opportunity for Plaintiff to file a Reply, this motion is continued for Plaintiff to file their Reply if desired.

This matter is accordingly continued to October 2, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for the filing of Defendant’s Reply herein.

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***