Civil Tentative Rulings

July 07, 2026

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

CV-24-001542 – ADAMS, JANICE vs NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY – a) Petition for Order Confirming Appraisal Award – GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Or, in the Alternative, Correct Appraisal Award – GRANTED in part as to correction.

The total amount is listed as $505,789.30, but the total appears to be $505,789.25. As such, the Court makes this correction.

a-b) On April 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified petition for order confirming appraisal award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1292.2. The filing included the April 20, 2026 Declaration of Nicholas J. Loncarich. On June 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. The reply included the June 11, 2026 Declaration of Nicholas J. Loncarich, which was filed in two parts. No opposition was filed.

On June 18, 2026, the Court continued the matter and approved the filing of Respondent’s original opposition, a declaration by Mr. Boggs regarding effort to file opposition, and an opposition by Mr. Loncarich. The Court is unable to locate Respondent’s original opposition and any declaration by Mr. Boggs regarding efforts to file an opposition to the petition for order confirming appraisal award. Instead, it appears Respondent filed a June 20, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Josiah Boggs addressing efforts to file Respondent’s competing motion to vacate after the original motion had been filed and served by e-mail. It does not appear that Respondent ever opposed the petition, although he told the court he had.

On June 11, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1286.2 and 1286.6, and applicable insurance policy provisions, along with a two-page memorandum of points and authorities. The filing included the June 11, 2026 Declaration of Josiah Boggs. Respondent also filed the June 20, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Josiah Boggs which addresses efforts to file the motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award. On June 23, 2026, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to vacate.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Code of Civil Procedure § 1286.2 sets forth specific grounds for vacation of award. Code of Civil Procedure § 1286.6 sets forth specific grounds for correction of award.

“A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) “A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (Id.)

“A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition except that if the petition is served in the manner provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1290.4, the response shall be served and filed within 30 days after service of the petition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

Petitioner argues correctly that Respondent has filed no opposition to the petition. The Court nonetheless considers the merits.

Courts must confirm an appraisal award unless statutory grounds exist to vacate or correct it. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Awards should normally stand immune to judicial scrutiny. (Moncharsh v. Heilly and Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4^th 1, 10). Nonetheless, it appears that the requested award is indisputably five cents off, and the correct amount is $505,789.25, not $505,789.30. Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED in the amount of $505,789.25.

Respondent’s competing motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award contains two short paragraphs of generalized, unsupported argument. Where a party fails to support arguments with specific facts or evidence, those arguments may be deemed waived. Arguments must be presented in the motion itself, not raised solely through declaration evidence. (See, e.g., Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 931, 934–935 [arguments not raised in the motion are forfeited]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [stating that the supporting memorandum “must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”].)

Respondent’s motion does not adequately allege the sort of fraud or other grounds for invalidity which would enable the Court to make some other correction. The allegations made are, as Petitioner asserts, precisely the sort for which judicial review is unavailable. 

Respondent’s motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award is GRANTED for the arithmetic error and the amount is modified to $505,789.25.

CV-24-008226 – MEDINA, JOHN JR vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC – Motion to Continue Trial – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions.

CV-24-008540 – TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission – DENIED.

On April 27, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to eleven requests for admission arguing that the responses are unverified and that many are evasive or incomplete, particularly where Plaintiff fails to identify any document supporting its response. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections.

On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues the parties’ meet and confer was not sufficient because the motion contains arguments not addressed during the meet and confer. Plaintiff states that it attempted to serve the verifications on March 9, 2026, just after the parties meet and confer phone call, but inadvertently attached the wrong document. The verifications were served on April 24, 2026, three days before Defendant filed its motion. Plaintiff also argues that the separate statement Defendant submitted is improper. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s separate statement contains paraphrased requests and flattened responses instead of the verbatim text. Plaintiff also argues that its responses are sufficient because Plaintiff answered each request and because no rule requires Plaintiff to support its responses with documents.

On June 29, 2026, Defendant filed a reply which largely argues that Plaintiff may not provide both objections and a response to a request for admission. Defendant argued that it does not contend that Plaintiff must identify supporting documents. As to the separate statement, Defendant argues that the separate statement it submitted is not an issue because Defendant also served the original requests and responses attached as Exhibit A to the April 28, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Todd Elliott.

On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an objection to Defendant’s new arguments submitted on reply. The same day, Defendant submitted a response to Plaintiff’s objection to new arguments submitted on reply. The Court does not consider the latter two documents, as they are unauthorized.

Defendant misapprehends the purpose of a compliant separate statement. The Court is supposed to be able to look at the separate statement and determine the issues in each request. The editing of the requests which deletes the reference to the 1996 easement ought not be fatal, but failing to include the complete responses is. The failure to substantially comply with Rule 3.1345 dooms the motion.

Defendant’s invitation to locate the actual requests elsewhere is declined for the reasons aptly noted by Plaintiff.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) “No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030.)

“Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.210.) Responding party shall either admit the request, deny the request, or state that it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.) “If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.230.)

If the merits were reached, they would likely be in favor of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in opposing the motion in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its counsel as reimbursement for 14 hours billed at a rate of $455 per hour. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) This is reasonable under these circumstances.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290, the Court orders monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, in conjunction with the instant motion. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation within 20 days.

In my last ruling on a discovery ruling, I concluded with, “Tesoro’s choices concern the Court and I anticipate that the parties will substantially or completely resolve other discovery issues without its assistance.” This anticipation was incorrect, and I now amend my forecast.

If the parties are not able to work out their discovery differences, I anticipate that substantial meet and confer efforts will occur and any motions filed will be precisely compliant with the rules.

CV-25-003510 – BANK OF AMERICA NA vs BANUELOS, LOLO M – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment – DENIED.

No service of the motion is on file, and the declaration does not show good cause and is untimely. The Court lacks authority to grant the motion.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on April 14, 2025. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear and defend the action. On August 5, 2025, default and the clerk’s judgment were entered against Defendant. On November 13, 2026, the abstract of judgment issued. On May 14, 2026, Defendant, appearing in pro per, submitted the instant motion to set aside default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 473(b) and 473.5. The motion is accompanied by a declaration.

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) “Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.)

In his declaration, Defendant states that he was served with the complaint and summons but did not understand that he needed to file a response. Defendant believed he could have just appeared in court. Defendant states that he appeared on a hearing date and found out a default judgment had been entered.

Section 473(b) requires that motions for relief “shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment . . . was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Here, the default and clerk’s judgment were entered on August 5, 2025. Defendant’s motion was not filed until May 14, 2026, which is over 9 months after the judgment was entered. Defendant’s motion is therefore untimely because it was not made within six months of the judgment.

CV-25-004154 – GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set No. One – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two – HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents – HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set. No. One - HEARING REQUIRED.

Discovery is supposed to be self-executing, and the parties appeared much closer on the issues than it appears in the filings.

This is complicated by the late filing under unusual circumstances not clearly covered by the case law. I have tentative views on the threshold matter of whether I have jurisdiction. While failure to pay is normally dispositive, the procedural posture of the case is not usual and forfeiture of the information appears unduly harsh.

If I have jurisdiction, or discretion to find jurisdiction, I intend to go forward on the motions.

However, it appears to the Court that Defendant has conceded overbreadth in the requests. If I reach the merits, here are the likely rulings:

RFA’s:

RFA’s 5 and 6 appear sufficiently answered. RFA 7 needs a further response. RFA 8 is properly objected to for ambiguity. RFA 9 has a sufficient answer. RFA’s 10 and 11 are sufficiently answered.

Form Interrogatories Set Two:

Form Interrogatory 17.1 subparts (b) and (d) require further response. If specific medical or privileged content would be responsive, asserting that privilege over specific content is warranted.

Production of documents:

All responses will be limited to October 2020 to December 2022. Item number 2, the Gualala declaration, will be compelled. Items 4-7 appear to include items now in Plaintiff’s possession, and they should be produced.

Special Interrogatories, Set One:

All interrogatories will be time-limited to the above dates. Special Interrogatory 18 requires a further response. Various witness identification issues should be answered.

Sanctions:

Although Plaintiff has failed to answer some discovery he should have answered, the lateness of the filing (and, perhaps, in-court efforts to reach resolutions) leave the Court deeply disinclined to issue any sanctions at all.

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

CV-25-012482 – KOURY, ANITA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 439, which requires that parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 439 was the delivery of a written communication on May 14, 2026, sent via email to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Jeck Dizon, ¶¶ 2, 4.)

A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 439. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than July 21, 2026, describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-23-000289 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST – Petitioner’s Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

 

Because of the late filing of the opposition and reply, and because the filing of the First Amended Complaint in the civil case is still in flux (with a related hearing now set for July 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21), the Court CONTINUES this matter on its own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

 

 

This is the second (or third?) motion to consolidate trial that the moving party has filed in this case. The last motion was denied on 5/14/26 for a procedural defect. But I will forward you and Kim the prior email in a moment to remind you of the dispute.

 

The opposition to this motion was late-filed on 6/29/26, the day that the reply was due, and AFTER the moving party filed a notice of non-opposition. The opposing party states that they missed calendaring the opposition because there have been several motions filed and withdrawn, and they experienced some confusion that caused them to overlook this. I am assuming the moving party is going to late-file a reply, but as of the time I am sending this, there is no reply showing in the court file. That is why I have highlighted “and reply” above. If the moving party does not file one before the hearing date, I recommend taking out this phrase and stating instead that the moving party may file and serve a reply by no later than July 23, 2026.

 

Since the denial of the motion heard on 5/14/26, the procedural posture of the civil case has changed somewhat. Judge Mayne granted permission for the filing of a FAC, but he conditioned it on a payment of fees and costs. There has been a dispute over the order, and Judge Mayne just set the matter for a further hearing on 7/8/26. Because the conditions have not been clarified, the FAC has not been filed into the case yet. Until it is officially on file, I can’t really do a substantive analysis reviewing the civil pleading and comparing it to the pleading in the probate case.

 

For the above reasons, I am recommending this continuance to July 30.

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

CV-24-000957 – ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; c) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; d) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero; Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; e) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Carmen Alicea Request for Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; f) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard after the Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved from their representation herein.

CV-25-011430 – CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO – Defendants Ramiro Chavez Et Al.’s Demurrer to Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The moving papers fail to include a declaration demonstrating meet-and-confer efforts as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.  Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above, and Defendant shall submit a supplemental declaration demonstrating compliance with the subject code section. The supplemental declaration shall be submitted no later than July 15, 2026.

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

CV-22-005681 – DISCOVER BANK vs DAHL, SARAH – Plaintiff’s Motion to Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement – GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of August 15, 2024, and Defendant’s failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1,599.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $5,913.62 [Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299].

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court’s ruling within five court days.

CV-25-005426 – SYNCHRONY BANK vs SARMIENTO, VIVIAN D – Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Judgment – GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of July 16, 2025, and Defendant’s failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $650.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $4,469.72 [Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299].

CV-25-008086 – FUENTES, JOSE vs ON POINT GRADING AND PAVING INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint – GRANTED, unopposed.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party. [Civ. Proc. Code § 473(a)(1)].

A liberal pleading amendment policy applies to amendments at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, absent prejudice to the adverse party.  [Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, review denied].

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment arises from the same general set of facts as Plaintiff’s original complaint, and that permitting the requested amened pleading will not cause any prejudice to Defendant.  [Garcia v. Roberts (2009), 173 Cal.App.4th 900]

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

CV-24-005909 – TORRES, MICHAEL vs GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC – Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein. 

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for March 18, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. 

Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than March 10, 2027, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  [Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b)].

The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

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:

UD-26-000444 – NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HOMES LLC vs MADNICK, FERN A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000352 – NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HOMES LLC vs PORCAYO, ANTONIO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.