Civil Tentative Rulings

November 03, 2026

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-26-003626 – JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs TAYLOR, KRESHA – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration - CONTINUED to January 12, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 21.

The Court was unable to locate proof of service of the moving papers in the Court file. The hearing is CONTINUED to January 12, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 21. Defendant to timely serve moving papers in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

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

CV-23-001284 – BOLTON, CHRISTOPHER vs US AUTO LEASING INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Served on Defendant US Auto Leasing, Inc – GRANTED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Served on Defendant US Auto Leasing, Inc. -  GRANTED.

a) GRANTED. Defendant admits it failed to timely respond. CCP § 2031.300(b) authorizes a motion to compel initial responses and does not require the meet-and-confer showing asserted by Defendant. Defendant US Auto Leasing, Inc. is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two, without objections, to the extent it has not already done so within ten (10) days of this date. Moving counsel shall prepare an order conforming to the Court’s ruling.

b) GRANTED. Defendant admits it failed to timely respond. CCP § 2030.290(b) authorizes a motion to compel initial responses and does not require the meet-and-confer showing asserted by Defendant. Defendant US Auto Leasing, Inc. is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objections, to the extent it has not already done so, within ten (10) days of this date. Moving counsel shall prepare an order conforming to the Court’s ruling.

PR-25-000173 – ESTATE OF WILLIAMS, TONY – Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The motion of McKenna B. Longchamps of Barsell & Longchamps, PC, to be relieved as counsel for Administrator Vanessa Williams is unopposed and complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Moving Counsel has shown sufficient grounds for withdrawal based on the client's prolonged failure to communicate, which counsel states has prevented completion of the probate administration. Counsel has also described reasonable efforts to confirm the client's address or locate a more current address. Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

The order shall become effective upon the filing of proof that the signed order has been served on Vanessa Williams. The status of final distribution hearing remains set for December 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. Ms. Williams is directed to appear. She is further advised that, as personal representative, she should seek legal advice regarding the limitations on her ability to represent the estate in propria persona. Her duties as administrator remain in effect notwithstanding counsel's withdrawal.

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

CV-24-007326 – AYARD, CONCEPCION vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendants’ Sylvia Coelho’s and Richard Coelho’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues – DENIED.

Defendants, as the moving parties, have met the initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment based on the submitted evidence.  The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).)  Plaintiff has met her burden in that regard as to all 3 issues presented by the motion herein. (See, at a minimum, UMFs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and Plaintiff’s additional facts.)

The Court cannot conclude that the sidewalk defect in question was trivial as a matter of law, in view of the additional contributing conditions identified by the expert declaration of Mr. Moore. In addition, City Ordinance 7-1.304 imposes a duty on Defendants herein, as adjoining landowners, to timely report any sidewalk conditions that appear dangerous to the City in writing or risk liability for injuries caused thereby; Defendants appear to concede that they did not notify the City in that regard. While Defendants claim no awareness or notice of the condition at issue prior to Plaintiff’s fall, Plaintiff has identified controverting evidence on that issue, which makes summary judgment improper in this context.

The Court rules on the parties’ objections to evidence as follows:

Plaintiff’s Objections:

Objections Nos. 1–4 are SUSTAINED for lack of personal knowledge and foundation insofar as each declarant purports to establish the other declarant’s knowledge. Objections Nos. 1 and 3 are also SUSTAINED as to the characterizations “on notice” and “dangerous conditions” as improper legal conclusions. The objections are otherwise OVERRULED as to each declarant’s own awareness and communications.

Objection No. 5 is SUSTAINED for lack of foundation and personal knowledge concerning the asserted measurement; the conditional response neither identifies a knowledgeable source nor establishes who measured the uplift, when, or how. This ruling applies only to the City’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 27, not No. 24. Objection No. 6 is SUSTAINED for lack of authentication and foundation establishing that the photographs accurately depict the relevant location and condition. Objection No. 7 is SUSTAINED for lack of authentication and foundation insofar as the photographs are offered to establish causation or City notice; no competent testimony connects the images to those propositions, and COELHO 0010 is not authenticated.

Objection No. 8 is SUSTAINED for lack of personal knowledge and foundation insofar as the testimony is offered to establish that the condition was not dangerous at the time of Plaintiff’s fall; Richard lacked contemporaneous observation, and the cited testimony does not express that conclusion. Objection No. 9 is SUSTAINED for lack of personal knowledge and foundation and as improper lay opinion and speculation; Sylvia did not inspect the condition or establish that the photographs depicted the relevant location.

Objection No. 10 is SUSTAINED for lack of foundation and relevance insofar as the testimony is offered to establish that no prior falls occurred or that the condition was not dangerous on March 8, 2024; the record does not establish Munguia’s knowledge of other pedestrians’ falls or comparable conditions during his prior crossings. Objection No. 11 is SUSTAINED for lack of relevance and the risk of confusion insofar as the testimony is offered to establish that the condition was not dangerous in 2024; the assessment concerned a materially different condition in 2015.

Objection No. 12 is SUSTAINED on hearsay grounds as to the written discovery responses and verification, which are offered by Defendants for their truth without an identified applicable exception. This ruling does not extend to the attached photographs. Objection No. 13 is SUSTAINED under the rule of completeness to avoid a misleading presentation of Plaintiff’s testimony: the Court considers the cited excerpt together with the testimony at 60:22–64:15 and the marked photograph, rather than excluding the excerpt.

Defendants’ Objections:

Defendants’ objections Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 to the declaration of Zachary M. Moore and its exhibits are SUSTAINED, as described below. The remaining objections are OVERRULED.

Objection No. 3 (Exhibit B): Plaintiff has not supplied sufficient authentication establishing that the Google Street View imagery depicts the claimed location and historical condition. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.)

Objections Nos. 4 and 10 (¶¶ 7 and 12): The opinions that the subject defect existed before the incident lack an adequate factual foundation. The historical imagery has not been authenticated or reliably connected to the identified fall site, rather than the different differential at the driveway. The resulting temporal conclusions are speculative. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b).)

Objections Nos. 7, 9, and 12 (¶¶ 9, 11, and 12): The challenged opinions improperly use studies and industry standards to prescribe the governing legal standard and determine Defendants’ legal duties. Those are questions for the Court, not an expert witness. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a); Summers v. A. L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155.)

CV-25-000047 – GERVERGIS, DAVID vs PERFORMANCE COMPANIES LLC – Plaintiff David Gervergis’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Propounded on Defendants Performance Companies, LLC and David Isreal Lopez-Palacios; Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, in part; DENIED as to sanctions.

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).)

The Court notes that Defendants challenge the propriety of service of the requests at issue; however, their opposition provides no authorities supporting the argument that electronic service of the subject requests in May 2026 was ineffective because defense counsel’s assistant was not included on the proof of electronic service. Both Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6 and Stan. Cty. Local Rules, Rule 1.14(C)(3) envision one designated address for electronic service. There is no argument herein that defense counsel was not properly served at her designated electronic address, and she concedes receipt of the email notice transmitting the requests.

The Court declines to award sanctions under the circumstances.

CV-25-006991 – VELEZ, PEDRO vs SILVA INJURY LAW – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Corrected Second Amended Complaint – DENIED.

The Court finds that the moving papers again fail to meet the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, in that Plaintiff fails to identify by page, paragraph and line number any additions/deletions in the proposed amended pleading from the previous version of the complaint. More significantly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the proposed amendment were discovered, and the reasons why the request was not made earlier. 

In addition, the proposed amended pleading appears to add a claim for punitive damages, and the motion fails to provide any cognizable explanation as to the reason for the inclusion of this claim in connection with the causes of action alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.

CV-26-000979 – CASTRO, DAVID vs GOMEZ, PATRICIO CASTRO – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4^th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.) Therefore, the Court awards $460 in sanctions against Defendant and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall serve and submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with this ruling. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department 24:

CV-24-007391 – RUIZ, CYNTHIA vs HUGHSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (CCP 2030.300) – DROPPED, by the moving party; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions (CCP 2033.290) – DROPPED, by the moving party; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production and Request for Monetary Sanctions (CCP 2031.310) - DROPPED, by the moving party.

a-c) DROPPED, by the moving party.

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 for Department 19***