Civil Tentative Rulings

May 19, 2026

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

CV-24-009851 - CHAVIRA, JAVIER CASTRO vs MODESTO SNF OPERATIONS LLC - a) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Witzcorp LLC and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; b) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Modesto SNF Operations LLC dba Golden Modesto Care Center and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; c) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One on Defendant Modesto SNF Operations LLC dba Golden Modesto Care Center and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; d) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive Opco Manager LLC and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; e) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive Operations Holdings LLC and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; f) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive SNF Consulting LLC and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; g) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant CH Cafive Holdings LLC and Request for Sanctions - DROPPED.

a-g) All motions have been dropped. The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to resolve these issues.

CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant American Contractors’ Indemnity Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.

a) The Court needs assistance from the parties to determine how to proceed. The Court will want an update on compliance.

b) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $435.00, payable by Defendant Enrique Aguilar to Plaintiff within 20 days.

No opposition was filed. The Court finds Defendant failed to serve timely responses and has waived all objections. Sanctions are warranted under CCP §§ 2030.290(c) and 2023.030.

c) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc.’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $435.00, payable by Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. to Plaintiff within 20 days.

No opposition was filed. The Court finds Defendant failed to serve timely responses and has waived all objections. Sanctions are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2023.030.

CV-25-011565 - HUGHES, GREGORY ALAN vs BREWER, ZACHARY E, MD - Defendant Zackary E. Brewer, M.D.’s  Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint - SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

MEET AND CONFER WAS DEFICIENT

Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41 requires that a parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before filing a demurrer. They did not.

DESPITE THE DEFICIENCY, THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS

Plaintiff asserts that he has agreed to file a First Amended Complaint, but has not done so. The Court cannot tell if an amended complaint will repair the vagueness and other deficiencies in the current complaint.

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days.

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

CV-21-005754 - GAVERT, JAMES vs CF MODESTO LLC - Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-25-012174 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs HENRIQUES, JOSEPH K - Defendant’s Application for Partial Withdrawal of Funds Pursuant to Stipulation - HEARING REQUIRED.

PR-25-000754 - IN THE MATTER OF THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to May 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to May 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

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

CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Misuse of Discovery Process Against Defendant's and Attorney of Record, Jointly and Severally - DENIED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is attempting to rehash a prior motion which the Court has already considered and in respect of which a ruling has already been issued. (Court’s Ruling of 3/12/26).

The doctrine of res judicata is not applicable here. (Phillips v. Sprint PCS, (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 758).  However, to the extent that the issue now raised in this motion should have been raised in the prior motion in the exercise of due diligence, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior ruling.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The court notes had the motion been granted, that Plaintiff would have been entitled to his attorney fees. (Mix v. Tumanjan Dev. Corp., (2002)102 Cal. App. 4th 131).

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order within five (5) court days that conforms with this ruling.

CV-25-005710 - MIRANDA, MARIO vs PACIFIC SUNRISE ASSOCIATES INC - Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - GRANTED, conditionally.

The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is untimely brought outside the six-month jurisdictional window. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b); Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal. App 5^th 267; Thompson v. Vallembois (1963), 216 Cal.App.2d 21; Austin v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, (2016); Summit Care-California, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (1986), 186 Cal.App.3d 1584). Defendant’s motion brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b) is therefore barred.

The moving party bears the burden of establishing a right to relief under the statute allowing relief from judgment based on mistake , inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.  (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016), 244 Cal.App.4th 918, on remand 2016 WL 6902896).

Equitable relief from a default judgment is reserved for exceptional circumstances. (Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13). A party seeking equitable relief from a default judgment based on extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake must satisfy three elements: (1) a meritorious case; (2) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action; and (3) diligence in seeking to set aside the default once discovered.  (Moghaddam v. Bone (2006), 142 Cal.App.4th 283).

Given Defendant’s acknowledgment of some indebtedness to Plaintiff, repayment issues,  and a willingness to address same outside of default proceedings which Defendant asserts are actively preventing Defendant from liquidating assets and repaying Plaintiff, Defendant’s emotional distress and mental health issues over the death of his daughter which negatively impacted his ability to prevent a defense to the action and Defendant’s diligence in acting to pursue relief herein, pursuant to the Court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction, Defendant’s motion is granted conditionally.   (Moghaddam v. Bone (2006), 142 Cal.App.4th 283; Rappleyea v. Campbell, (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975; Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b)). 

The grant of the requested relief is conditioned on the following:

Within fourteen days of the date of this order Defendant shall provide a bond undertaking in the sum of $332,500 based on the compensatory damages determined recoverable by Plaintiff according to the Court’s default judgment herein of November 17, 2025.   A fine of the minimum and attorney fees is appropriate.

Defendant shall also reimburse Plaintiff for his reasonable attorney fees and costs of $15,597 so far incurred in this matter due to Defendant’s inaction herein.

A penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000) is imposed upon Defendant. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473(c) (1)(A)).

A Case Management Conference is set for October 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-008189 - VERDUZCO, MARIA vs NAIDU, SHALVINA - Cross Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is timely and provides grounds for the grant of the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant the requested relief on the basis of a finding of mistake on the part of Cross Defendant’s prior and current Counsel and on a finding that said relief does not prejudice Plaintiff. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b); Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 13).

The Court does not consider Mr. Field’s declaration as a complying attorney affidavit of fault. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b); Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009).

 

Defendant’s Proposed Answer is attached to the motion as required by statute.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b); Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is hereby granted. (Maynard v. Brandon, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 364).

Cross Defendant shall file her Answer to the Cross Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

Cross Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five (5) court days that comports with this ruling.

CV-25-007982 - GALLARDO, ROSARIO DAMAR ZEPEDA vs SKITTONE ALMOND SHELLER INC - Defendant Skittone Almond Sheller Inc’s Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED.

The Court finds that the parties’ arbitration agreement, is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. (9.U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., (2003). 539 U.S. 52; Aviation Data, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1522).

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute and that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of proving the existence of same by the preponderance of the evidence. (9. U.S.C.A§ 1 et seq ;Code of Civil Procedure, § 1281; Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967; Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic, (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158).

The Court finds that to the extent that Plaintiff was not required to execute the Dispute Resolution Agreement as a condition of employment and that the Dispute Resolution contained an optout provision which was in bold font the Dispute Resolution Agreement was not a contract of adhesion. (Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Pardee Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1081; Ayala-Ventura v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 241, 254–255.) A high degree of substantive unconscionability would therefore be required to render the Dispute Resolution Agreement unenforceable. The more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required for court to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa. (Nelson v. Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc., (2022)77 Cal. App. 5th 643).

The court finds that the provision of the Dispute Resolution Agreement that requires the arbitration to be kept confidential is a substantively unconscionable provision. (Ramos v. Superior Ct., (2018), 28 Cal. App. 5th 1042, as modified (Nov. 28, 2018).

The Court finds that the provision of the Dispute Resolution Agreement that limits Plaintiff’s remedies to those that would be available to a party in his or her individual capacity in a court of law and that prevents forfeiture of claims “ that otherwise would be available to an individual in a court of law” is not substantively unconscionable. 

The Court also finds that to the extent that the attorney fee provision provides for each party to pay its own fees “subject to remedies the party may later be entitled to under applicable law”, that any applicable fee shifting provisions are incorporated into said provisions and applicable to the Dispute Resolution Agreement.

The provision of the Dispute Resolution Agreement that extends Plaintiff’s arbitration obligations to Defendant’s officers, directors etc. is not bilateral, is unjustifiably one-sided and substantively unconscionable. (Cook v. Univ. of S. California, (2024), 102 Cal. App. 5th 312, reh'g denied (June 13, 2024)).

The arbitration agreement meets the minimum requirements of enforceability in that it: (1) provides for neutral arbitrators, (2) provides for more than minimal discovery, (3) requires a written award, (4) provides for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102.)

The Court further finds that the provision that requires the arbitration of disputes including those related to “harassment” is not substantively unconscionable and does not violate the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment to the extent that the statute gives the party alleging sexual harassment the option to elect to proceed with their claims per the predispute agreement in arbitration or not. (9 U.S.C.A. § 401 and 402).

The Court finds that the two substantively unconscionable provisions do not permeate the entire arbitration agreement with unconscionability. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.) Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion as provided for in the Dispute Resolution Agreement to sever said provisions and enforce the remaining provisions of the arbitration agreement. (Civil Code section 1670.5(a); (Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare, (2023) 91 Cal. App. 5th 482). 

Defendant’s motion is accordingly hereby granted.

Plaintiff’s individual Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claims are hereby ordered to arbitration. Plaintiff’s representative Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) action is hereby pending the conclusion of said arbitration. (Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5^th 1104, Code of Civil Procedure, § 1281.4)

Plaintiff’s general objections to Ms. Aschwanden’s supplementary declaration on grounds that it is new evidence submitted in Reply is rendered moot as the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to file a Sur-Reply. (Plenger v. Alza Corp., 11 Cal.App.4th 349, 362 (1992) quoting Weiss v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098.)

Objections to paragraph 6 of said declaration on the grounds of Improper Authentication -Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401; California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g); Lack of Foundation - (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405, 702(a); Civ. Proc. § 482.040; Lack of Personal Knowledge - Evid. Code § 702 and Hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code § 1200 are overruled based on the contents of paragraph 1 of said declaration including that Ms. Aschwanden attestation to having worked with Defendant in the summer of 2022, to her responsibilities with onboarding and personnel matters etc., as well as on a review of Plaintiff’s personnel records and onboarding records.

Objections to paragraphs 7 and 8 which refer to the Microsoft Word document properties for the Spanish DRA and the native metadata respectively based on Improper Authentication -Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401; California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g); Lack of Foundation - (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405, 702(a); Civ. Proc. § 482.040; Lack of Personal Knowledge - Evid. Code § 702 and Hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code § 1200 are sustained on all grounds except on the hearsay ground.

Objections to paragraph 12 of said declaration are overruled on the same grounds as the objection to paragraph 6.

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court’s ruling within five (5) court days.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases 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***