Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.12 concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 or ctreport@stanct.org to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-23-002637 – SMITH, DAVID vs SANDHU, SE STORES – Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP 664.6 - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court is very likely to GRANT the unopposed motion. The Court has questions about attorney fees and wants to discuss the language of the proposed order.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-22-004042 – AGUEDA, ROBYN vs WALMART INC – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (set One) – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to be heard on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to be heard on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.
a-b) In the interest of judicial efficiency, Defendant’s motions are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to be heard on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22 along with two (2) additional discovery motions pending in this matter.
CV-24-002391 – MUNOZ, JUAN HERNANDEZ vs VELIA, GUTIERREZ – Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or in the Alternative Discovery and Evidence Sanctions - GRANTED in the alternative.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99(b)(1) the Court orders Defendant Velia Gutierrez is prohibited from conducting discovery in this action.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-23-002354 – MURPHY, KENNETH vs STINSON ENTERPRISES – Compliance Hearing – DROPPED.
Based on the settlement administrator’s declaration submitted on 3-27-25, the Court finds that compliance has been demonstrated, and no hearing is necessary. Class counsel shall submit a form of amended judgment reflecting the total amount of unclaimed settlement funds disbursed to the designated cy pres recipient.
CV-23-003196 – MCMURRAY, AMANDA F vs RUIZ, JHETT JAMES – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication of Issues – DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes a number of procedural problems with the instant motion. Most significant in this regard is the fact that while the caption references the motion as one for “summary judgment/summary adjudication of issues,” the separate statement does not comply with the requirements for summary adjudication. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1350(b),(d).) Therefore, summary adjudication has not properly been requested herein and the motion is treated as one for summary judgment.
Additionally, while the notice purports to move for summary judgment/adjudication on behalf of both defendants, the supporting papers do not address the negligence claim against Jhett Ruiz at all. Further, the notice appears to reference a statute of limitations argument as the basis for the motion, and that issue is, likewise, not addressed in the supporting papers. In view of these combined procedural deficits, the Court questions whether the moving papers provide the opposing party with sufficient due process and notice of the issues to be adjudicated.
Assuming arguendo that the moving papers sufficiently address the issue of Laura Ruiz’ claimed entitlement to summary judgment on the claim against her based on Civ. Code section 1714.3, the Court finds the existence of material factual disputes which prevent judgment in that regard. (See, at a minimum, UMFs 3, 4, 5, and Plaintiff’s Additional Facts.)
CV-23-005824 – ARNEBECK, NAOMI MARIE vs YOSEMITE & CREEKWOOD INC – Plaintiff Naomi Marie Arnebeck’s Motion for Monetary, Issue, Evidentiary, and Terminating Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Against Defendant; Request for Monetary Sanctions – DENIED.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant willfully destroyed the subject evidence.
CV-24-003399 – CONTRERAS, GEORGE vs LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY LLC – Defendant Liljenquist Modesto Company, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Prayer for Attorney’s Fees, Punitive Damages, and Injunctive Relief) – DENIED.
The Court finds that the pleading sufficiently alleges facts supporting the prayer for the subject damages at this stage.
CV-24-005117 – MCCOY FAMILY APIARIES LLC vs BARIOS, AL – Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include the Name Change of Judgment Debtor - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to May 14, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
Plaintiff’s purported evidence supporting the requested amendment is partly inadmissible due to the hearsay statements attributed to Plaintiff’s employee, Mr. Franzel. The Court cannot properly consider such evidence in its current form. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above, to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain a declaration from Mr. Franzel as to his personal knowledge bearing on the issue of whether the judgment debtor herein (“Al Barios”) and the purported AKAs (“Alfred D. Barios, Jr.” and “Al Barios, Jr.”) are the same person.
Plaintiff’s supplemental evidence shall be submitted no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-25-001434 – ALESARGEZ, HELEN vs CITY OF TURLOCK – Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – MOOT.
Following the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint after the filing of Defendant’s Demurrer, Defendant’s Demurrer is now MOOT. (Civ. Proc. Code § 472).
CV-25-002896 – MORALES, FRANCISCO vs SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA – Claimant’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Production of Documents - GRANTED.
The Court finds that Claimant is entitled to take Ms. Johnson’s deposition. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ § 2017.010\, 2025.250; 2025.280 (a), 2025.280; Slaieh v. Superior Ct. of Riverside Cnty., (2022)77 Cal. App. 5th 266; Tatkin v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 745; Brown v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559; Williams v. Superior Ct., (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531; Cruz v. Superior Ct., (2004)121 Cal. App. 4th 646).
The parties shall meet and confer within the next fourteen (14) days and agree on a date and time for Ms. Johnson’s deposition.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
UD-25-000387 – AGUINIGA, TRINO vs OJEDA, JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ – Motion to Strike – HEARING REQUIRED.