December 17, 2025

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

CV-24-000513 – GOMES, RAYMOND vs TURLOCK SCAVENGER COMPANY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement –GRANTED.

The Court has reviewed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pleads eight causes of action on behalf of putative classes, subclasses, and aggrieved employees under PAGA, including claims for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, improper sick pay calculations, inaccurate wage statements, untimely payment of final wages, unfair competition, and civil penalties under PAGA.

The gross settlement amount is $750,000.00, non-reversionary, subject to Court-approved deductions including attorney fees of $250,000, administrative expenses of no more than $6,500, PAGA penalties of $20,000 of which $15,000 will be sent to the LWDA, and a class representative payment of $5,000.

The Court views the deductions as reasonable given the nature of the litigation.

Net settlement funds will be distributed pro rata based on workweeks. PAGA penalties will be allocated consistent with statute.

The Court provisionally certifies the settlement class for settlement purposes only, appoints Plaintiff Raymond Gomes as Class Representative, appoints Class Counsel as settlement class counsel, and appoints Apex Class Action LLC as Settlement Administrator.

The Court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement, subject to final approval.

The Court approves the form and manner of the proposed Class Notice and directs the Settlement Administrator to mail notice consistent with the schedule set forth in the proposed order.

Defendant shall provide class data to the Settlement Administrator within 15 days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Administrator shall mail notice within 14 days of receipt of the class data. Class Members shall have 45 days from the initial mailing to submit requests for exclusion, objections, or challenges, with a 14-day extension for re-mailed notices.

The Court sets the Final Approval Hearing on April 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21. Plaintiff shall file moving papers in support of final approval no later than 16 court days before the hearing.

Discovery and other pre-trial proceedings are stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing, except as necessary to implement the settlement and this order.

CV-24-007503 – AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs SINGH, PRADIP – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered, CCP 473(B), CCP 473.5, CIV. 1788.61, CCP 473(D), and Quash Service of Summons (CCP 418.10) – HEARING REQUIRED.

Defendant’s proof of service filed on November 20, 2025, is incomplete and the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff has been provided with proper notice of the motion. 

CV-25-005993 - KAADY EQUIPMENT CO vs SINGH, RJ – Cross-Defendant Kaady Equipment CO.’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint – DROPPED.

Cross-Defendant Kaady Equipment Co’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint is DROPPED at the request of the moving party and pursuant to a telephone call to the Clerk’s Office received on December 5, 2025.

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

CV-24-009219 – RABO AGRIFINANCE LLC vs FANTOZZI, PAUL – Plaintiff’s Motion for Application for Right to Attach Order – HEARING REQUIRED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 484.040, the Court will hold a hearing on this matter. The Court is satisfied that the requested attachment is based on a contractual claim of a readily ascertainable amount in excess of $500, that the loan is secured only by personal property, and that the loan is commercial in nature. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010.) Therefore, it appears that the claim is one on which an attachment may issue. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 484.090(a).) The Court is further satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated the probable validity of its claim, that the attachment is sought for a proper purpose, and that the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (See id.)

However, “[w]here the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property shall be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.020(e) [emphasis added].) It is on this issue that the Court has questions. Plaintiff seems to have provided the Court with a statutory laundry list of assets to be attached without any additional descriptors. This is especially troubling to the Court when it comes to Plaintiff’s request to attach real property; the Court is uncertain that such vague descriptors are adequate where the Defendants are natural persons and would like Plaintiff to come prepared at the hearing to provide further authority on this issue.

The Court also questions whether a $10,000 bond is adequate given the breadth of the property that Plaintiff seeks to attach and would like to discuss this issue as well.

CV-25-005904 – CENTRAL STATE CREDIT UNION vs JACKSON, WALTER JOSEPH – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, General, Set One, to Deem All Objections Waived, and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification, unopposed. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification, unopposed.

a) Regarding the Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, the Court finds that the Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery, and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified responses without objection to these form interrogatories within 15 days of service of the signed order.

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c), the Court must award a monetary sanction to the prevailing party unless the Court finds that the person subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust Plaintiff has asked for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,010. Some of the requested time is impermissible (e.g., the time for drafting the discovery requests themselves) and some is unnecessary (e.g., anticipated time to review the opposition and attend the hearing). Consequently, the Court will award sanctions against Defendant Walter Joseph Jackson, payable to Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson, A Professional Law Corporation, in the amount of $760, which represents two hours of attorney work billed at $350 per hour and $60 in costs for the filing fee.

 

Plaintiff to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

 

b) Regarding the Requests for Admissions, Set No. 1, the Court finds the Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery, and any objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set No. 1, as propounded on Defendant, are deemed admitted.

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction … on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Plaintiff has asked for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,195. Some of the requested time is impermissible (e.g., the time for drafting the discovery requests themselves) and some is unnecessary (e.g., anticipated time to review the opposition and attend the hearing). Consequently, the Court will award sanctions against Defendant Walter Joseph Jackson, payable to Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson, A Professional Law Corporation, in the amount of $760, which represents two hours of attorney work billed at $350 per hour and $60 in costs for the filing fee.

 

Plaintiff to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-22-003528 – KINGSLEY, ANDREW ROBERT vs WYNDHAM HOTEL MANAGEMENT INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service demonstrates insufficient notice to the client and opposing counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) In addition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a matter filed less than 16 court days before the hearing. (Ibid.)

CV-24-006343 – MCGILL, TERREA vs PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE SERVICE CORPORATION – Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval of Claims Brought Under the Private Attorney’s General Act, and Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Costs – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Based on the information provided in the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State’s goal of benefiting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement and the distribution of the settlement funds, including the amounts allocated to attorney’s fees and costs, administration costs, and the representative plaintiff’s payment, as set forth in the moving papers. (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).)

In addition, Plaintiff’s request to submit a Second Amended Complaint is approved; such pleading shall be submitted for filing within 5 days. Additionally, the class claims are dismissed without prejudice.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-007442 – GARCIA, RAFAEL vs MEZA, ERMINIA – Defendant’s Motion to Strike First Amended Verified Complaint of Plaintiff Rafael Garcia AKA Rafael Garcia Ochoa – DENIED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant failed to meet and confer prior to submitting the instant motion, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5.  Defense counsel is cautioned to observe such requirements in connection with future filings. Nevertheless, the Court is prepared to rule on the substance of the motion in this instance, as follows:

The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint was properly submitted pursuant to the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 472(a) and that leave of court was not required.  Moreover, to the extent that the instant motion makes substantive arguments against the viability of the specific claims asserted in the amended pleading, a motion to strike is not the proper method by which to challenge such claims.

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

CV-25-008276 – PNC BANK vs KAKKAR TRANSPORT INC – a) Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession as to Defendant Kakkar Transport INC – Hearing Required. b) Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession as to Defendant Guray Kakkar – HEARING REQUIRED.

a) A hearing is required based on the provisions of Code Civ. Proc §512.020(a). Based on the moving papers and evidence, the Court would be inclined to DENY the application based on the motion’s failure to meet the requirements for the writ to issue. (Code Civ. Proc §512.010(b) (1) and (2) Notably, the omission of a copy of Defendant’s Statement of Account with Plaintiff, as well as evidence of any demand upon Defendant to meet its outstanding obligations or to return the Collateral. Plaintiff may address/clarify these issues at the hearing.

b) A hearing is required based on the provisions of Code Civ. Proc §512.020(a). Based on the moving papers and evidence, the Court would be inclined to DENY the application based on the motion’s failure to meet the requirements for the writ to issue. (Code Civ. Proc §512.010(b) (1) and (2) Notably, the omission of a copy of Defendant’s Statement of Account with Plaintiff, as well as evidence of any demand upon Defendant to meet its outstanding obligations or to return the Collateral. Plaintiff may address/clarify these issues at the hearing.

CV-25-010938 – KEYSTONE RANCH LLC vs CITY OF PATTERSON – Petitioner’s Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED. 

The parties shall be prepared to update the Court on the status of this dispute and the production of the relevant documents.  If Petitioner still intends to prosecute the writ, the parties shall be prepared to discuss a schedule for record development and briefing.

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

UD-25-001028 – US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs BOWERS, LATONA R – Defendant’s Motion to Stay Unlawful Detainer – HEARING REQUIRED.