Civil Tentative Rulings

November 13, 2026

                           

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

CV-23-006262 - PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT vs DUARTE NURSERY INC – a) Defendants Green Valley Labor, Inc. and Samuel Valero's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication to Plaintiff's Complaint – MOOT; b) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against the Complaint and Causes of Action Therein of Plaintiff Gilberto Magana Mora - MOOT.

 

a-b) MOOT.

 

The Court received a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case on November 10, 2026. The Court thanks the parties for the filing, vacates all dates, and sets the matter for the Court’s Motion to Dismiss on February 26, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21.

Please note that all counsel may call or email Department 21 in any case where a dispositive motion has been mooted by settlement. The processes used by the Court should result in timely notification to the judge, but our processes are not perfect.

CV-24-005166 - HOUGH, GARY vs PATTON AMUSEMENT CORPORATION - Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial and Reopen Discovery – HEARING REQUIRED.

 

The Court is strongly disinclined to reopen discovery, and the Court needs the parties’ assistance on the continuance issue.

CV-25-011178 - SANGHA, GURPREET vs PACIFIC CARE SALIDA LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement – GRANTED.

 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order.

 

On October 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for approval of settlement pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code, section 2698 et seq. There is no opposition in the Court file. In this wage and hour case, the court has reviewed the allegations and statements from counsel.

 

Having reviewed the unopposed motion and the supporting declarations and exhibits thereto, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes. (Lab. Code, § 2699(s)(2); Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 disapproved of on other grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664 [addressing standing to intervene].)

 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as set forth below:

 

Gross settlement amount: $135,000.00

PAGA Counsel Fees amount: $45,000.00

PAGA Counsel Litigation Costs amount: $8,557.60

Settlement Administration amount: up to $5,000.00, limited to actual reasonable charges

Plaintiff’s Service Award amounts: $7,500 each

PAGA Fund amount, allocation to LWDA (65%) and PAGA Members (35%): $68,942.40 ($44,812.56 to LWDA, $24,129.84 to PAGA Members).

CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Defendant's Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding – GRANTED.

 

The motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims and to stay action is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims are stayed. Plaintiff’s class claims are dismissed. The stay of the parties’ arbitration is hereby lifted. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the Court file. Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) Defendant to give notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5.)

On July 14, 2026, Defendant filed an amended petition to compel arbitration and to stay action. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to submit his individual claims in this action to arbitration, to strike or dismiss the putative class allegations, and to stay the non-individual PAGA claims pending completion of the arbitration. Plaintiff opposed, Defendant replied, and Plaintiff filed an authorized sur-reply.

 

After a hearing, the Court ordered supplemental briefing. Plaintiff had stipulated to arbitrate overlapping causes of action in another case. Plaintiff filed its supplemental brief on October 30, 2026. Defendant filed its supplemental brief on November 6, 2026.

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

Defendant's request for judicial notice of Exhibits A-D is GRANTED. The request for judicial notice of Exhibit E is unnecessary as the Court probably need not make such a ruling to consider papers filed in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

 

Arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims

 

A party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [moving party must establish agreement to arbitrate].) If that burden is met, the opposing party bears the burden of proving a defense to enforcement, such as unconscionability. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Dev. (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [burden shifts to opposing party to prove defense].) 

 

Here, a valid arbitration agreement appears to exist. Defendant contends that Plaintiff signed an individual arbitration agreement on March 7, 2018, and also that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any employment related disputes pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Plaintiff’s union and Defendant.

 

In a related case, Plaintiff expressly agreed that the Collective Bargaining Agreement controlled and that the CBA had a mandatory arbitration clause, and that Plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement on March 7, 2018. This stipulation appears binding on Plaintiff and defeats many of his arguments in this case. Plaintiff’s concession of being bound by the agreements probably estops him from arguing that the arbitration agreement does not apply here. In its supplemental brief, Plaintiff does not dispute that his individual claims are governed by a valid arbitration agreement.

 

The Court compels Plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration.

 

Class claims

 

Defendant argues that there is an enforceable class action waiver and thus, if Plaintiff’s individual claims are compelled to arbitration, then the Court must dismiss the class claims. (Evenskaas v. California Transit, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 285, 298 [reversing trial court and directing trial court “to enter a new order granting the motion [to compel arbitration] and dismissing [plaintiff’s] class claims”].)

 

Plaintiff does not contest the existence of the class action waiver. Instead, Plaintiff requests that, before the putative class claims are dismissed, Plaintiff should be given 120 calendar days to provide notice to putative class members and find a new class representative. But none of Plaintiff’s cited cases involve an arbitration agreement, an enforceable class action waiver, or a case that was stayed pursuant to arbitration.

 

Here, because the Court is compelling Plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration, it is appropriate “to dismiss and strike his class claims.” (Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 353, 361, review denied (Aug. 12, 2026) [affirming the order dismissing and striking plaintiff’s class claims].)

 

Stay and non-individual PAGA Claims

 

“[W]here a plaintiff has filed a PAGA action comprised of individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.” (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123.)

 

Because Plaintiff’s individual claims are referable to arbitration, a stay is appropriate. (9 U.S.C. § 3; (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 320.) Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims are stayed pending the resolution of arbitration.

 

Lifting stay of the arbitration

 

This Court previously stayed the American Arbitration Association proceeding at AAA Case No. 01-26-0001-1828 on June 5, 2026. The Court hereby lifts said stay.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-24-009782 - SAMPAG, JEANNELYN R vs IMPORT DEALER SERVICES INC - Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-25-005759 - SORIANO, ANGEL MANUEL VS. ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS – a) Plaintiff Angel Manuel Soriano's Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Vanguard College Preparatory Academy Community Council, and Request for Monetary Sanctions -GRANTED, in part, as to sanctions; DENIED, in part, as MOOT. b) Plaintiff Angel Manuel Soriano's Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Modesto City Schools, and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, in part, as to sanctions; DENIED, in part, as MOOT. c) Plaintiff Angel Manuel Soriano's Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Aspire Public Schools, and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, in part, as to sanctions; DENIED, in part, as MOOT.

a) The Court finds that Defendant failed to timely respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Of note, the “objection only” responses served on 3-16-26 were of no legal effect, as such objections had already been waived due to Defendant’s lack of timely response. However, the Court notes that the request for an order compelling responses appears to be MOOT due to Defendant’s service of verified responses on 10-30-26.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, which it appears was necessary in order to elicit Defendant’s service of the subject responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $300 are awarded against Defendant, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall serve and submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

b) The Court finds that Defendant failed to timely respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Of note, the “objection only” responses served on 3-16-26 were of no legal effect, as such objections had already been waived due to Defendant’s lack of timely response. However, the Court notes that the request for an order compelling responses appears to be MOOT due to Defendant’s service of verified responses on 10-30-26.

 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, which it appears was necessary in order to elicit Defendant’s service of the subject responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $300 are awarded against Defendant, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall serve and submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

c) The Court finds that Defendant failed to timely respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Of note, the “objection only” responses served on 3-16-26 were of no legal effect, as such objections had already been waived due to Defendant’s lack of timely response. However, the Court notes that the request for an order compelling responses appears to be MOOT due to Defendant’s service of verified responses on 10-30-26.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, which it appears was necessary in order to elicit Defendant’s service of the subject responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $300 are awarded against Defendant, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall serve and submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

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

CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN – Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Previous Attorney Of Record, Shiloh Parker [C.C.P. Sec. 128.7] – DENIED.

Although Defendants present evidence that they mailed a safe-harbor letter and proposed motion on June 11, 2026, and did not file the motion until July 22, 2026, the notice of motion served during the safe-harbor period did not specify a hearing date. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010 and 128.7, J.N. v. Goldberg (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 544, 549-550, and Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4^th 535, 537-538, the omission renders the statutory notice defective.

The motion is also directed principally at Plaintiff's August 28, 2025 motion to compel and statements made in connection with that discovery motion. Section 128.7 does not apply to discovery motions governed by the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., §128.7, subd. (g).) Nor does section 128.7 provide an independent basis to sanction oral statements apart from the presentation or later advocacy of a paper within the statute.

To the extent the present application renews a previously denied motion, the moving papers also do not make the showing required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b).

The Court has considered Plaintiff's opposition only to the extent it addresses the procedural history and legal validity of Defendants' motion. Plaintiff does not represent former counsel and may not assert rights belonging exclusively to her. That limitation does not preclude the Court from independently enforcing the mandatory requirements of section 128.7.

Plaintiff's request that Defendants or their counsel be held in contempt is DENIED. No separately noticed contempt application is before the Court.

No sanctions or attorneys' fees are awarded to either side in connection with this motion.

CV-24-008466 - MILLER, CEDRICK vs HOME OXYGEN COMPANY LLC - Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED.

The motion was filed and served on 10/23/26, after the 10/16/26 filing deadline set in the Court's 6/8/26 Order Granting Preliminary Approval and with less notice than Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1005(b) and 1010.6(a)(3)(B) require. Because the motion is unopposed, Defendant agreed not to oppose it, and no prejudice appears, the Court exercises its discretion to consider it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, and absent any unexpected objections or other issues, the Court intends to GRANT the motion, as modified below.

It appears that proper notice to the settlement class has been given in compliance with the law and as required by the Court's order granting preliminary approval. The proposed settlement was submitted to the LWDA on 4/17/26. (Lab. Code § 2699, subd.(s)(2).) Having considered the unopposed motion and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into in good faith, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civ. Code § 1781; Code Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.769; Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) The Settlement Class, as defined in q 2 of the 6/8/26 Order, is finally certified for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Cedrick Miller is confirmed as Class Representative, and Mehrdad Bokhour (Bokhour Law Group, P.C.) and Joshua S. Falakassa (Falakassa Law, P.C.) are confirmed as Class Counsel. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as follows:

Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator (ILYM Group, Inc.): $5,000; Class Representative Service Payment: $7,500. Plaintiff's declaration describes his contributions only in general terms and does not quantify the time he spent. (See Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.) The remaining $2,500 shall be added to the Net Settlement Amount. (Settlement Agreement 1 53(f).);

PAGA allocation: $5,000, of which 65% ($3,250) shall be paid to the LWDA and 35% ($1,750) shall be distributed to PAGA Employees. This allocation conforms to the Settlement Agreement, Labor Code § 2699, and the Class Notice, and it corrects the 75%/25% allocation stated in q 9 of the 6/8/26 Order;

Class Counsel's attorneys' fees: $45,000; and

Class Counsel's costs: $15,000. The request for costs in excess of $15,000 is denied because it exceeds the cap in the Settlement Agreement (4 53(g)) and the 6/8/26 Order and the amount disclosed in the Class Notice. The remaining $1,020.20 shall be added to the Net Settlement Amount. (Settlement Agreement 4] 53(g).)

Defendant shall pay the employer's share of payroll taxes separately from the Gross Settlement Amount, as provided in q 53(a) of the Settlement Agreement. Within 10 days after entry of judgment, Class Counsel shall submit a copy of the judgment to the LWDA and file proof of that submission. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(3).)

In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 384(b), the Court sets a compliance hearing for April 28, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, to confirm full administration of the settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall submit a compliance declaration no later than 15 calendar days before the hearing. The declaration shall include: the total amount actually paid to class members and PAGA Employees; the number and value of checks cashed and uncashed; confirmation that all other court-approved payments have been made; and the identity of the proposed cy pres recipient(s), along with a statement of any relationship between the recipient(s) and the parties or counsel. At the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the unpaid residue be paid to the approved recipient(s) in accordance with § 384(b). Class Counsel shall submit a proposed amended judgment at least five court days before the compliance hearing.

The Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.771(b).) Class Counsel shall identify the website address in the revised proposed order.

The current proposed order awards litigation costs and a service payment in amounts that do not conform to this ruling, leaves the compliance hearing date blank, does not identify the cy pres recipient or address the § 384(b) amended judgment procedure, and does not identify the website where notice of judgment will be posted. The clerk's office is instructed to reject the current proposed order, and Class Counsel is ordered to submit a new proposed order and judgment within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

CV-26-001568 - SLYUSARCHUK, ROMAN vs LACHANCE, HARRIS – Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Settlement of Claim for Penalties Pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act DENIED without prejudice.

The Court must review and approve any settlement of a PAGA claim and determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of PAGA's purposes. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2); Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.Sth 955; Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.Sth 56.) The gross amount, non-reversionary structure, pro rata allocation, and statutory 65/35 distribution appear reasonable on their face. However, the Court cannot approve the settlement on the present record for the following reasons:

1. Release. Section 5.1 of the Settlement Agreement releases PAGA penalties based on minimum wage, overtime, meal period, and rest period violations, and on IWC Wage Orders generally. None of these were identified in Plaintiff's February 13, 2026 LWDA notice. A PAGA plaintiff's authority is limited to the facts and theories stated in the notice. (Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1128; LaCour v. Marshalls of CA, LLC (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 505.) Section 11.18 precludes the Court from severing the release. The parties must amend the release so that it covers only PAGA civil penalties based on the facts and theories alleged in the LWDA notice and the First Amended Complaint during the PAGA Period, and must conform the proposed order to the amended release.

2.  Valuation. Plaintiff must submit evidence of (a) the maximum potential PAGA penalties for each noticed violation, (b) a realistic estimate after accounting for Labor Code section 2699, subdivisions (e) and (g)-(j), and (o), and the employees' pay frequency, and (c) the reasons supporting the discount, including the effect of Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (c)(1), on Plaintiff's standing given his exempt status during the PAGA Period, and the effect of the arbitration agreement Defendants contend Plaintiff executed (see Order Granting Leave to File FAC, Aug. 18, 2026, q 4).

3. LWDA compliance. Plaintiff must file proof that the Settlement Agreement and motion were submitted to the LWDA (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2)) and that a file-stamped copy of the First Amended Complaint was provided to the LWDA (id., subd. (s)(1)). The amended agreement and renewed motion must also be submitted to the LWDA when filed.

4. PAGA Period. Section 2.23 measures the PAGA Period from the filing date of the First Amended Complaint, which is August 26, 2026. The motion and proposed order use June 15, 2025 through August 19, 2026. The parties must state the correct PAGA Period and confirm that the pay-period and employee estimates correspond to it.

5. Fees, costs, and administration. Plaintiffs counsel must submit a summary of hours by timekeeper and task for the PAGA claim, confirm that no fees or costs sought here are also paid under the Individual Settlement Agreement, and itemize costs. Plaintiff must also submit the Administrator's bid or a declaration from the Administrator supporting the $5,000 cap.

6. Individual Settlement Agreement. Because the Individual Settlement Agreement is interdependent with the PAGA settlement, Plaintiff shall lodge it with the Court for in camera review, or lodge it conditionally under seal in compliance with California Rules of Court, rules 2.550-2.551.

7. Execution and form of judgment. The parties must submit a fully executed agreement (and any amendment) bearing each signatory's printed name, title, and date of signature. Defendant Newport LLC's signature is undated. The parties must also submit a proposed judgment consistent with Settlement Agreement sections 2.9 and 9, or explain why an order followed by dismissal is consistent with the agreement and with Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(3).

Any renewed motion shall be noticed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and shall address each of the issues above. (Optional: The hearing is continued to February 17, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24; supplemental

papers shall be filed and served at least 16 court days before the continued hearing.

Renewed-Motion Checklist

CV-25-010636 - MOCHIZUKI, THOMAS H vs SOSA, EFREN - Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The alternative motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the second cause of action (money lent) and DENIED as to the fourth cause of action (fraud). The motion is CONTINUED as to the first cause of action (breach of contract) and the third cause of action (unjust enrichment) for supplemental briefing, as set out below.

Notice

Defendant, who is self-represented, filed no opposition. The Court has independently reviewed the proofs of service. The notice of motion and all supporting papers were served by mail on August 19, 2026, at the address Defendant gave in his answer. That is 86 days before the hearing, which satisfies the 81-day notice period plus five days for mailing within California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2); id., § 12c.) Plaintiff's reply was timely filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4).) The notice identifies each cause of action for which summary adjudication is sought. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b).) The notice does not identify any claim for punitive damages as an issue to be adjudicated. The Court therefore does not consider the punitive damages finding requested in undisputed material fact (UMF) No. 50.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the complaint filed October 28, 2025, and of its August 12, 2026 order deeming Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Legal Standard

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must produce admissible evidence on each element of a cause of action entitling it to judgment. Only then does the burden shift to the defendant to show a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850- 851.) The absence of opposition does not relieve the Court of the duty to determine whether the moving party has met that burden. (Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1086-1087.) A plaintiff need not disprove the defendant's affirmative defenses. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.) Summary adjudication must completely dispose of the cause of action, including damages where damages are an element. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1);; Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 243.) A matter admitted in response to a request for admission, including by court order deeming it admitted, is conclusively established against the party making the admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410, subd. (a); Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)

Summary judgment is DENIED. As discussed below, Plaintiff has not carried his burden on the fourth cause of action, and the first and third causes of action are not resolved by this ruling. The motion therefore does not dispose of the entire action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(1), (c).)

Second Cause of Action - Money Lent: GRANTED

The deemed admissions and the declaration of Thomas H. Mochizuki establish the following:

(1) Defendant received $100,000 from Plaintiff in November 2024 as a loan (RFA Nos.

                    1, 5; UMF Nos. 26-27; Mochizuki Decl. 14 2-3).

(2) Repayment was due on or before March 5, 2025 (RFA No. 7; UMF No. 27;

                    Mochizuki Decl. 4 4).

(3) Defendant has repaid no part of the loan (RFA Nos. 8-9; UMF Nos. 28-29;

                     Mochizuki Decl. 1 4, 6).

These facts establish each element of the common count for money lent in the principal amount of $100,000. Defendant has not identified any triable issue. Summary adjudication of the second cause of action is GRANTED in Plaintiff's favor in the principal amount of $100,000. Any award of prejudgment interest will be determined with the first cause of action or at entry of judgment.

First and Third Causes of Action - Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment: CONTINUED

Plaintiff has established the existence of the promissory note, his own performance, and Defendant's failure to pay at maturity (RFA Nos. 1-10, 24; UMF Nos. 1-14; Mochizuki Decl. 1 2-4). However, damages are an element of the first cause of action, and the amount Plaintiff seeks raises a question of law the moving papers do not address.

Plaintiff seeks $115,000 plus interest at 28 percent per annum from March 5, 2025. The note provides for repayment of the $100,000 principal plus a $15,000 premium about four months after the loan was made, which is roughly 45 percent on an annualized basis, and for default interest of 28 percent per annum. The California Constitution limits the interest a non-exempt lender may charge. (Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.) The record contains no evidence that Plaintiff is an exempt lender (see, e.g., Civ. Code, § 1916.1) and no evidence of the purpose of the loan. Plaintiff relies on deemed admissions that the 28 percent rate is owed (RFA Nos. 11, 26, 29), but those requests seek legal conclusions. Plaintiffs reply itself asks the Court to determine whether the rate "is lawful and enforceable" and, in the alternative, to award interest under Civil Code section 3289. Because the availability and measure of restitution on the third cause of action depends on whether, and to what extent, the note is enforceable, the third cause of action is continued with the first.

The motion is CONTINUED as to the first and third causes of action to December 4, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. By November 20, 2026, Plaintiff shall file and serve a supplemental brief, with any supporting evidence, addressing the following:

1. Whether the $15,000 premium and the 28 percent default rate are lawful under article XV, section 1, including any applicable exemption and the purpose of the loan.

2. Whether the Court may consider the enforceability of those terms on this motion although Defendant did not     plead usury as an affirmative defense. (The Court believes it can, but would like Plaintiff's input on the question.)

3. Whether deemed admissions can establish entitlement to interest above the constitutional limit.

4. If either term is unenforceable, the amount Plaintiff may recover, including the effect of Civil Code section 3289.

5. Whether the third cause of action states a separate basis for recovery given the express contract.

Defendant may file and serve a response by November 30, 2026. Service on Defendant shall be by mail or personal delivery unless he has consented to electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6.)

Fourth Cause of Action - Fraud: DENIED

The deemed admissions establish that Defendant delivered a $100,000 check drawn on an account he knew could not honor it, with intent to deceive (RFA Nos. 13-22; UMF Nos. 35-45). Plaintiff has not, however, carried his burden on the remaining elements, for two reasons.

Reliance. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff relied on the check by attempting to cash it. (Compl. 4 29.) The motion instead asserts that Plaintiff relied by forgoing legal action (UMF No. 47), a theory that is not pleaded and is not supported by any admission. A motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues framed by the pleadings. (FP/ Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)

Damages. The only evidence of damages is the conclusory statement that Plaintiff suffered "loss of my time, loss of use of my money, stress, and anxiety." (UMF No. 49; Mochizuki Decl. q 15.) The statement gives no amount and no facts showing that reliance on the check caused any loss separate from the unpaid debt. Plaintiff's reply asks only for "findings" on the fraud elements "without duplication of the monetary award." Summary adjudication does not permit findings on individual elements that do not dispose of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

Summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action is DENIED. The denial rests on Plaintiff's failure to meet his initial burden, not on any triable issue raised by Defendant.

Attorney's Fees and Costs

Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees and costs (UMF Nos. 21-25) are not properly resolved on this motion. Any fees and costs shall be sought after entry of judgment by noticed motion and memorandum of costs. (Civ. Code, § 1717; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702.)

Further Proceedings

No judgment will be entered while the fourth cause of action and the Doe defendants remain in the case.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling and shall prepare a proposed order consistent with it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (g); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

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 in Department 19***