Amended January 07, 2026

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

CV-22-000132 - CENTRAL VALLEY ASSOCIATES vs AMERICAN TRADERS INC - Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED and unopposed.

Defendant’s attorney Timothy I. Crawley, Crawley LLP, Portland, Oregon, is relieved effective upon filing proof of service of an order which correctly lists the next hearing dates in this case – a Settlement Conference on October 12, 2026 and a Jury Trial on October 27, 2026.

If the matter has resolved, or the parties wish a different outcome, they should request a hearing.

CV-24-008274 - DOUGLAS, SHAWNA MARIE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS - Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Actions - DENIED.

Consolidation is discretionary and may be ordered only where it will avoid unnecessary cost or delay without imposing undue prejudice or confusion. Consolidation is not a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a); Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.) Where potential consolidation creates a substantial risk of making the trial too confusing or complex for a jury, or prejudicing a party, it must be avoided. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048; Todd-Stenberg v. Daikon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

Courts have determined that where common issues do not predominate over the individual issues, or where the risks of prejudice to a party can outweigh the reduction in time and expense that would result, consolidation should not occur. The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency, but not at the expense of a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial .

The two actions arise from different alleged misconduct, separate investigations, and distinct termination rationales. Plaintiffs’ allegations do have elements of similarity regarding the alleged picture, and there may or may not be cross-admissibility.

Plaintiff Douglas was terminated for allegedly committing timecard fraud while Plaintiff Jones was terminated when Defendant’s investigation revealed that, while clocked in for work, she allegedly spent considerable time conducting her own interior design and rental property company.

Additionally, while Plaintiffs’ cases allege similar motivations for Defendant’s behavior, Douglas claims racial harassment and workplace-safety retaliation under Labor Code sections 6310-6312 (claims not alleged by Jones).  Jones claims disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process (none of which are causes of action alleged by Douglas). These differences would require separate evidentiary showings and instructions.

The Court acknowledges that some or even many of the witnesses will be the same and covering some of the same ground in separate trials. On balance, the Court finds the risk of confusion and prejudice outweighs any efficiencies.

Also – trial in Douglas’ case is set to commence on May 12, 2026, while Jones’s trial is scheduled to start September 22, 2026.  Douglas’ case is further along procedurally, with a motion for summary judgment already on file.

Rescheduling the trial date in Douglas’ case (and possibly Jones’ as well due to the lengthier trial required by  consolidation) will cause prejudice as memories fade and the cost of bringing the cases to trial mounts.

Even assuming overlap in witnesses or background, the Court concludes that the distinct factual predicates and non-overlapping legal claims predominate, and consolidation would materially risk jury confusion and prejudice while disrupting the current schedule. Consolidation is also improper where, like here, the risks of jury confusion or prejudice to a party outweigh any reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation.

The Court makes no express or implied finding on what me-too evidence is admissible at trial. 

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

If the parties desire coordinated management of overlapping discovery or witness scheduling, they may meet and confer and submit appropriate stipulations or motions addressing such logistics without consolidating the actions.

CV-25-002506 - BRAY, RADUS L vs TRUDELL, LILLIAN L - Defendant Lillian Trudell’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges facts showing a breach in 2024, which places the asserted claims within the applicable statute of limitations.

The FAC pleads that on or about July 2024, Defendant refused to execute and record the lease memoranda as required under the parties’ lease agreements. It also alleges that as a result of this refusal, Plaintiffs lost a potential sale of their property interest.

The FAC alleges additional and continued refusals in December 2024 and at least through January 16, 2025.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege they lost other opportunities to sell their interest in the real properties, because the proposed buyers would not move forward with the transaction without the lease memoranda being recorded.

The laches argument (as well as other arguments of bad faith litigation) are not susceptible to a demurrer given that the Court is required to consider only the current complaint, any judicial admissions in prior filings, and judicially noticeable documents.

These allegations, which the Court must accept as true, adequately plead a breach of contract occurring in 2024 and continuing thereafter, within the statute of limitations. Whether any earlier breach occurred, and any effect on accrual or limitations, presents factual issues not suitable for resolution on demurrer, especially given the no-waiver clause.

The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant shall file and serve her answer within 10 court days of service of this order.

***The tentatives for Department 23 are being heard in Department 21***

CV-23-005395 - PINEDA, AMITAI vs GOLD LEAF FARMING LLC - a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - MOOT; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions -  MOOT.

a-b) The parties have chosen a discovery referee and shall provide an order in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. section 639. That order should be directed to Judge John R. Mayne.

CV-24-008918 - LIEGL, ANTHONY vs FINLEY, JAMES LEE - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One to Selena Cotto and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $717.50 on Plaintiff Selena Cotto and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Requests for Production, Set One to Anthony Liegl and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $717.50 on Plaintiff Anthony Liegl and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally - WITHDRAWN; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One to Angel Sanchez and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $717.50 on Plaintiff Angel Sanchez and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally - GRANTED, and unopposed; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One to Angel Sanchez and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $717.50 on Plaintiff Angel Sanchez and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally - GRANTED, and unopposed; e) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One to Selena Cotto and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $717.50 on Plaintiff Selena Cotto and Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) c)-e) The Court grants these motions as facially meritorious and unopposed.

b) Withdrawn.

CV-25-004427 - DHILLON, VIJAYPAL SINGH vs STATE BANK OF TEXAS - Defendant Thyne Berglund Co’s Demurrer - SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Given the ruling in the prior Demurrer involving the State Bank of Texas, I (Judge Mayne) am likely bound by the finding of Judge Freeland there was insufficient showing of a void deed of trust. (See: Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4^th 368)

As an amended complaint has already been ordered on December 19, 2025 which is due this week, the Court anticipates that the issues as to each defendant will be addressed in some fashion. The existing deadline for an amended complaint remains.

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

CV-24-004968 - RAYGOZA, CHRISTINA vs FL TRANSPORTATION INC - Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Ms. Raygoza as the Class Representative and Substitute Mr. Sanchez as the Lead Plaintiff; and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is leaning toward GRANTING the motion for leave to amend but will hear argument on this matter.

CV-25-000139 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs RAMIREZ, ANA M - Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - GRANTED with clarification, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment “or in the alternative, for an order granting summary adjudication against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff’s causes of action in the Complaint, on the grounds that Plaintiff has established the elements of its causes of action for Breach of Contract and Common Counts….” (Mot., at pp. 1-2.) The Court clarifies that the complaint in this case asserted only one cause of action, for breach of contract. Consequently, the request for summary adjudication is defective. However, the motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.

Request for Judicial Notice 

 

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the summons and complaint and proof of service of the summons and complaint. The unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Breach of Contract 

A breach of contract claim “requires a showing of ‘(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.’ [Citations.]” (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800.)  

SUF Nos. 1-12 in the separate statement are adequate to establish each of the required elements for a breach of contract claim. There is competent evidence to support the facts on which Plaintiff’s motion relies. In the declaration from Plaintiff’s qualified witness, the descriptions regarding the declarant’s knowledge lay a sufficient foundation of familiarity with the Plaintiff’s practices and computer systems and the authenticity of its records. (See People v. Lugashi (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 632, 640.) 

Because Defendant failed to file any opposition to the motion, the facts set forth in the separate statement are treated as undisputed. 

 

Proposed Order 

 

The proposed order mistakenly references the non-existent common counts. Consequently, the clerk is instructed to reject the current proposed order, and Plaintiff is required to submit a new proposed order within 10 days that conforms to this ruling.   

 

Trial Date Vacated 

 

The trial date of March 13, 2026, is VACATED. 

CV-25-006934 - SANCHEZ, ESCOBAR LEOBARDO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Defendant’s Motion for Compliance and Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26(b) states, “Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).”

Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26(f)(3) requires the production of “[a]ny finance information, account information, including payment history and estimated payoff amount, and any loan modification agreements.” Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to timely produce the required financing documents and loan payoff documents. As there is no opposition to the motion, the Court treats Defendant’s contentions as uncontroverted. Consequently, the Court GRANTS the motion and requires Plaintiff to produce any documents responsive to Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26(f)(3) within 15 business days.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26(j)(1) states, “Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: … A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b).”

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s demand for sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Neal F. Morrow III of MFS Legal Inc. The sanctions shall be paid to Defendant’s counsel Dykema Gossett, LLP, within 15 business days.

PR-23-001118 - IN THE MATTER OF THE VICKIE MARTIN AND LAWRENCE MARTIN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST -

Petitioner’s Motion for Order Determining Good Faith of Settlement - DENIED without prejudice.

The Court is somewhat confused by this motion, which appears to be applying a procedure typically used for joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a debt in a civil case to a probate proceeding. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 877; 877.6; Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.) The Court assumes that Moving Party actually meant to file a petition for approval of a settlement agreement.

To the extent that this motion is treated as a petition for approval of a settlement agreement, the papers fall short. Specifically, a petition for approval of a settlement agreement needs to set forth the names and addresses of all heirs and beneficiaries of the estate of Lawrence Martin (including residual and contingent beneficiaries) as well as of The Vickie Martin and Lawrence Martin Revocable Trust and then clarify whether the interest of any heir or beneficiary who did not sign the agreement would be adversely impacted by the proposed settlement. In addition, a notice of hearing must be provided to all heirs and beneficiaries regardless of whether they have appeared in either the estate or trust case.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a petition for approval of the settlement agreement.

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

***The tentatives for Department 23 are being heard in Department 21***

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 24***

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***