Civil Tentative Rulings

July 14, 2026

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***

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

PR-23-000109 – In the Matter of LEO LANDUCCI AND PATRICIA LANDUCCI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF 2007 – Respondent Kathleen Landucci's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.  

The Court finds Respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party on the special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Petitioner's opposition, even if considered despite its untimeliness, does not challenge any specific billing entry, hourly rate, or cost item and largely addresses issues relating to the merits of the underlying ruling, which are not before the Court on this motion.

However, the Court's review of the moving, reply, and supporting papers reveals apparent inconsistencies regarding the total amount of fees sought. Different figures appear in the submitted materials, and it is unclear from the present record what precise amount Respondent requests the Court to award.

Accordingly, the Court will hear argument regarding the calculation of the requested award and the reconciliation of the amounts reflected in the moving papers, supporting declaration, and reply before determining the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.

The issue of entitlement is resolved. The only issue to be addressed at hearing is the correct amount of recoverable fees and costs.

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 per the parties’ joint request to October 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

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

CV-24-003417 – LVNV FUNDING LLC vs SMITH, TANNER – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Leave to Defend Action – DENIED.

It appears that Defendant relies on the wrong code section in seeking relief.  Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5 applies in the situation where there has been proper service of summons but the defendant nevertheless did not find out about the action in time to defend. Here, Defendant argues that proper service was not accomplished, as he denies receipt of process despite the registered process server’s attestation that Defendant was personally served. In addition, Defendant failed to submit a proposed answer with his moving papers, which is required by Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(b).

Under the circumstances, it appears that Defendant’s options for relief are limited to demonstrating that service was never accomplished, making the judgment void under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d), or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic mistake or fraud which prevented him from being able to represent his interests in the matter while it was pending, thus warranting exercise of the Court’s equitable powers to set the judgment aside.

Where a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction due to effective service.  (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4^th 403, 413.)   However, a filed proof of service by a registered process server that complies with the statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Evid. Code § 647; Floveyor International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (Shick Tube-Veyor Corp.) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4^th 789, 795; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4^th 1426, 1441-1442.)  Here, Defendant presents only his own self-serving and uncorroborated declaration to support his assertion that service was never accomplished; this is insufficient to overcome the presumption of valid service in this instance.

CV-25-000998 – ALBERTO, MONICA vs GARCIA, RUBEN – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Reponses from Defendant to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant for Misuse of the Discovery Process – DENIED. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Reponses from Defendant to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant for Misuse of the Discovery Process – DENIED.

a) The Court notes that the instant motion is brought under the wrong Code section, as Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 addresses the situation where no responses are received, and Plaintiff concedes that timely verified responses were served on 2-10-26. Therefore,. Therefore, it appears that the motion should have been brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, and Plaintiff’s request for an order finding objections waived and/or entering Defendant’s default is improper under the circumstances.

The Court further notes that the dispute herein has been rendered MOOT by Defendant’s service of verified amended responses on 4-8-26.

b) The Court notes that the instant motion is brought under the wrong Code section, as Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 addresses the situation where no responses are received, and Plaintiff concedes that timely verified responses were served on 2-10-26.  Therefore, it appears that the motion should have been brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, and Plaintiff’s request for an order finding objections waived and/or entering Defendant’s default is improper under the circumstances.

The Court further notes that the dispute herein has been rendered MOOT by Defendant’s service of verified amended responses on 4-8-26.

CV-26-000780 – CHAHAL, NAHAR SINGH vs NEWREZ LLC – Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to August 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court requires more time to review this matter. In the meantime, the parties, through counsel, are instructed to continue meet-and-confer efforts in an attempt to narrow and/or resolve the issues presented herein. Defense counsel shall file a supplemental declaration with regard to such efforts and the results thereof no later than August 4, 2026.

UD-26-000355 – CHAVEZ FAMILY TRUST vs WRIGHT, SHAUN – Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court questions whether the moving papers were properly served on Plaintiff’s counsel in connection with the instant hearing, in view the absence of a formal proof of service from Defendant as well as the absence of opposition from Plaintiff.

Assuming the papers were properly served, the parties shall appear and be prepared to address the issue of the discrepancy in the property address in the 3-Day Notice and the potential actions available to the Court and the parties as a result, given that possession has already been returned to Plaintiff and Defendant concedes that he no longer uses the property for business purposes as of October 2025.

UD-26-000418 – CHAHAL, HARJIT SINGH vs ESTELL, KARL, Sr – Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to DENY the motion, as relief pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) is not available after the matter has been litigated on the merits, and Defendants have failed to demonstrate grounds for their argument that the judgment herein is void.

In addition, the Court notes that Defendants’ pleadings, including the instant motion, consistently violate the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.108 with regard to the formatting of papers submitted to the Court. Defendants are reminded that they are not entitled to special consideration based on their self-represented status and are responsible for following the rules of procedure in the same manner as an attorney practicing before this Court. (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 208.)

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 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 – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition – HEARING REQUIRED.