November 20, 2025

The following are the tentative rulings 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:

CV-24-005667 – RODGERS, MELINDA vs. WEIDNER, JEFFERY CHARLES – a) Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. c) Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a–c) At the request of the Moving Party, these matters are CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-24-006462 – REYESMARTINEZ, TELMO S. vs. GARZA, IMELDA CHRISTINE – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and/or Their Attorney – CONTINUED to January 15, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Per minute order dated September 25, 2025, the parties were to meet and confer on this motion and file a joint statement by November 12, 2025. However, there is nothing new in the court file. Consequently, the Court CONTINUES this matter again, this time to January 15, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. As previously directed, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by video conference within the next 10 days. Failure to comply with these instructions or to file a statement by January 5, 2026, may result in the Court denying the motion.

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

CV-24-001815 – RUBIO, OLIVIA MENDOZA vs. MADRIGAL, JOSE LUIS SUAREZ – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The effectiveness of the order will be delayed until counsel submits proof of electronic service of the signed order on the client.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)

CV-25-003327 – BLAINE, BRANDON vs. ASSOCIATED FEED & SUPPLY CO – a) Defendant Associated Feed & Supply CO’s Demurrer to Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. b) Defendant Associated Feed & Supply Co’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint – DENIED.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the 2^nd and 3^rd Causes of Action alleging violations of California’s meal and rest period requirements, as these statutory provisions are preempted for commercial truck drivers under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its “Hours of Service” provisions. (49 U.S.C.A. § 31141; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 986 F.3d 841 (9^th Cir. 2021).)

However, the Court notes that the law favors leave to amend in this context to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to substitute or add a suitable representative with standing to assert the subject claims. (See, e.g. CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 286.)  While the Court is unclear whether such a course of action is a viable possibility in this context, leave to amend is, nevertheless, granted for this purpose. Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint in this regard within 30 days.

b) The motion is premature at this juncture. The issues presented appear to be more properly suited for determination at the class certification stage.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-25-001434 – ALESARGEZ, HELEN vs. CITY OF TURLOCK – Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. 

While Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint includes more relevant detail as per the Court’s order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, factual details are still missing regarding the allegations of continued discussion of Plaintiff’s claims with Defendant.  Notably, Plaintiff fails to provide facts regarding the timing and content of her “continuing to discuss the claims” with Defendant - Jason Hedden, Reagan Wilson, Lilia Franco and Brian Odom. 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint also lacks allegations supporting the element of intent regarding Plaintiff’s equitable estoppel claims. (In re Marriage of Turkanis & Price, (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 332; Evid Code section 623.

Therefore, the court finds that the Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts that would toll the applicable Statute of Limitations to Plaintiff’s state and federal claims herein, and that would be sufficient to state the asserted causes of action.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is hereby sustained, with leave to amend. (Government Claims Act. Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)). Plaintiff is advised that this may be her last opportunity to state her case in this matter given the multiple opportunities to amend her Complaint given by the court. 

Plaintiff shall file her Fourth Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this order. (CRC 3.1320(g)).

CV-25-005985 – BARRETT, PORSCHE LEANA vs. NORCAL DALE PARTNERS LP – Defendant, Norcal Dale Partners, L.P. DBA Famous Dave’s Bar-B-Que, Motion for an Order (I) Compelling Plaintiff Porsche Leana Barrett to Submit Her Claims to Binding Arbitration, (II) Dismissing Plaintiff’s Class Allegations, and (III) Staying the Litigation – GRANTED.

 

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties as to the claims asserted herein by Plaintiff . (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967; Gamboa v. NorthEast Community. Clinic, (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158). 

 

An employer need not sign an arbitration agreement to demonstrate assent thereto  (Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., LLC, (2015).235 Cal. App. 4th 165). Furthermore, the language of said agreement expressly evidences an intention by Defendant to be bound thereby.

The Court also finds that Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce (9.U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., (2003). 539 U.S. 52). Additionally, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows contracting parties to agree to the rules under which the arbitration will be conducted. (Aviation Data, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1522)

 

Based on the applicability of the FAA, Labor Code sections 4229 and 32.6 are preempted.   (FAA.  § 2). 

 

The Court further finds the arbitration agreement demonstrates a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability on the basis that it is a contract of adhesion and on the basis that arbitration agreement was only two pages long and clearly described the binding nature of the agreement with important terms either in bold, in capitals and or underlined. (Alvarez v. Altamed Health Servs. Corp., (2021),60 Cal. App. 5th 572 as modified (Mar. 4, 2021).

 

Consequently, a high degree of substantive unconscionability will be required to render said agreement unenforceable. (Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., LLC, (2015) 235 Cal. App. 4th 165).

The Court also finds that the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit its application to employment disputes between the parties. However, to the extent that the arbitration agreement states that the Jams Rules of Practice and Procedure are applicable to any arbitration between the parties, sufficient ambiguity exists as to the scope of said arbitration agreement that the court may apply the principles of interpreting agreements which favor reasonable and common sense interpretations that align with the parties’ apparent intent, avoid interpretations that render a contract unreasonably harsh, unfair or absurd  and interpret the contract as a whole. As a result, the Court may reasonably interpret the arbitration agreement to apply to disputes arising from Plaintiff’s employment only. (Brown v. Goldstein, (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 418; West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC, (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1179); Civ. Code § 1641).

 

Enforcement of agreements to arbitrate a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff's individual claims is required if the agreement is covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). However, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court. (Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., (2023)14 Cal. 5th 1104);. (Gregg v. Uber Techs., Inc., (20230 89 Cal. App. 5th 786,), review dismissed, cause remanded sub nom. Gregg v. Uber Techs., No. S279722, 2023 WL 5964898 (Cal. Sept. 13, 2023)).  

 

Defendant NorCal Dale Partners LLC though a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement may compel arbitration as a related entity to Defendant NorCal Dale Partners LLC., and as a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. (Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 1). 

 

Plaintiff’s objections to Mr. Perez’s declaration are hereby overruled.  (Evid Code § 1271; Evid. Code, § 702, subd. (b).)

 

The court therefore concludes that the arbitration agreement between the parties is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is hereby granted. (9.U.S.C. § 1 et seq; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1281 and 1281.2)

 

All proceedings herein are stayed pending the arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims. (9 U.S.C. §3; Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.4).

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:

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 19***