November 6, 2025

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

CV-25-009060 – CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs SPECTRUM MOBILE LLC – Petitioner Civil Rights Department’s Petition for an Order Compelling Compliance with Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court requires counsel’s assistance and might require further briefing.

The Court has questions:

1. CRD says that a protective order is unnecessary. The Court is confused as to why the CRD won’t agree to such an order as being “unnecessary,” when it appears that it may solve future problems. If there is a need for altering the order, the Court will be available.
2. The Court is under the impression that Spectrum will supply all of the process documents unredacted if there is a protective order. Is this correct?
3. What information generally of a cable account holder triggers the PII provisions of the Cable Act? It appears that 47 USC section 551 was designed to protect viewing habits, among other things.
4. The redactions on the account records appear substantial. What is the nature of these redactions?
5. What is the precise wording in Government Code section 12963.5 which obviated the requirement to give notice for the ex parte hearing?

The Court tentatively believes the assertions of work product and attorney-client privilege are sufficiently made in the pleadings and documents before it. Under Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4^th 110 and Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4^th 725 the dominant purpose of the communication appears to be to make litigation determinations, and there is insufficient evidence by CRD to show that this was a routine fact-finding effort to overcome the apparent work product and attorney client privileges.

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

CV-24-004371 – BERGER, KEVIN vs HERNANDEZ, DAVID – Defendant and Cross-Complainant David Hernandez’s Joinder in Receiver’s Motion for Authority to Reject Lease of 701 East Canal Drive, Turlock, California – CONTINUED to December 4, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

At the request of the Moving Party, this matter is CONTINUED to December 4, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-24-007998 – LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION vs SANTILLAN, JESSICA HEATHER MARIE – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – CONTINUED to December 18, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Per minute order dated October 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant “in person, by telephone, or by video conference,” as required by the statutory language of Code of Civil Procedure § 439. Instead of complying with this order, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration on October 13, 2025, that recounted prior (written) efforts to communicate with the Defendant, ending on July 25, 2025. What is not present in that declaration is any showing that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer by one of the statutorily authorized methods. Nor does the declaration indicate that Plaintiff informed Defendant it would be filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings by a date certain should the parties be unable to come to an agreement.

The meet-and-confer statutes are not intended as a mere formality. They require a genuine, good-faith exchange and deliberation between opposing parties. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; State Assn. of Real Property Agents v. State Personnel Bd. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 206, 211.) 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.

Furthermore, the Court observes that its October 3, 2025 ruling expressly set forth the permissible means for meeting and conferring. If Plaintiff disagreed with that directive, it had the opportunity to request a hearing after the tentative ruling was issued. Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, it allowed the tentative ruling to stand without objection. To now assert that compliance was unnecessary because, in Plaintiff’s unilateral view, its prior efforts were “sufficient” reflects a troubling disregard for the Court’s explicit order.

The Court CONTINUES this matter again, this time to December 18, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22, so that the parties can meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” (see Code Civ. Proc., § 439), as previously ordered. The conference is to take place no later than November 25, 2025. Plaintiff shall file and serve its reply and a supplemental declaration describing the efforts it made to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues by no later than December 4, 2025. Defendant may file and serve a declaration responding to the supplemental declaration by December 11, 2025.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling within five court days.

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

CV-21-005110 – NOGHLI, TELLY vs NOGHLI, ALBERT – Defendant’s Joann Dickinson Homes, Inc.; and Joann Dickinson’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions [CCP 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300, 2031.310] – GRANTED, in part, as to monetary sanctions; DENIED, in part, as to terminating sanctions, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct in failing to comply with the Court’s 5-22-25 order constitutes misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), (g).)  However, under the circumstances the Court declines to award terminating sanctions at this time.  Plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified further responses, without objection, and to produce all responsive documents within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

The Court further finds that moving Defendants are entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with Plaintiff’s continued failure to respond to the subject discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(c), 2023.010, 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).)   Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to pay $560 in monetary sanctions to defense counsel.  This award is made in addition to the monetary sanctions previously imposed by the Court’s order on 5-22-25. 

CV-23-003092 – AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs SIMS, SUZI – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal without Prejudice and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6 – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties and the Court’s Order dated 8-6-24, by which the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement herein. Therefore, the motion is granted, the dismissal is set aside, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for the total amount of $6,333.44, which represents the principal amount and costs (pursuant to the parties’ agreement and Plaintiff’s concurrently filed cost bill), less $283 in payments credited to the account.

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-004196 – CAPITAL ONE NA vs LUCAS, KRISTIE M - Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside CCP 664.6 Dismissal and Enter Judgment Against Defendant – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties and the Court’s Order dated 9-25-24, by which the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement herein. Therefore, the motion is granted, the dismissal shall be set aside, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for the total amount of $4,595.21, which represents the principal amount and costs agreed to in the parties’ stipulated settlement agreement, less $1,044 in payments credited to the account.

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-007835 – ZHANG, MENJUN vs SUNRISE MHC LLC – Defendant’s Motion to Strike Amended Complaint and to Stay Proceedings – DENIED, in part, as MOOT.

The Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike and continued the hearing for supplemental briefing on the issue of the Request for a Stay.  However, the Court notes that Defendants have now submitted a separate, noticed Motion to Stay Proceedings, which is presently set for hearing on 12-2-25. The Court agrees that this procedure affords the parties a more appropriate opportunity to fully address the issues implicated by a potential stay of the instant action.

Therefore, the parties shall submit opposition and reply briefs within the statutorily prescribed time periods, as calculated from the 12-2-25 hearing date.

UD-25-000871 – KATENJUDE LLC vs EABEL, ALISCHA – Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – DROPPED, as MOOT, in light of the stipulation and order signed by the Court on 11/3/2025 settling the case.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-25-006617 – EXPLOITED MILK PRODUCERS INC vs ROSS, KAREN – Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene – GRANTED, unopposed.

Good cause existing and procedural requirements having been satisfied, Save QIP Dairy Farmers is hereby granted leave to file its Answer-in-intervention herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 387)

Said answer-in-intervention shall be filed within seven (7) days of the date of this 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:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***