Civil Tentative Rulings

September 2, 2026

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

CV-23-001208 - MILLER, CRAIG vs DOPP, KLYVE – Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions regarding the mitigation argument and needs the parties’ assistance.

The Court finds that the closing argument admonition was appropriate.

The Court finds that, if a new trial is not awarded on the mitigation issue, additur is appropriate for insufficient past medical damages and future medical damages.

FACTUAL SUMMARY:

This was a rear-end car crash on March 13, 2021, where Plaintiff’s car was hit by Defendant’s truck on Highway 99. Plaintiff claimed neurological damages leading to mood adjustment issues. Plaintiff also claimed some injuries. The jury returned a verdict against Defendant for $200,000 in past medical expenses, $72,500 in future medical expenses, $60,000 in past non-economic damages, and zero in future economic damages.

Plaintiff’s expert Edward Angelone testified that Plaintiff had permanent cognitive defects that might worsen over time. Other Plaintiff’s experts supported this view.

Plaintiff’s billing expert calculated fair market value of the medical bills at $319,365. (Amounts are rounded down to the nearest dollar.) Defendant’s expert estimated the charges at $269,908.

Plaintiff’s expert Ms. Nebel estimated future expenses for care, including home care, cleaning, medical expenses, and other expenses at over $3,000,000.

Defense expert Dr. Tony Strickland testified that Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and had depression and anxiety. He testified further that Plaintiff had suffered from depression and anxiety. He further testified that Plaintiff’s answers in testing indicated that he was not fully attempting to answer the questions accurately, so the degree of his cognitive impairment could not be determined.

Strickland had testified at deposition that Plaintiff’s medical treatment was spotty and deficient and that his condition would be improved even now by proper medical care.

In closing argument, the Court interrupted Plaintiff’s counsel and gave a curative instruction for what it viewed as misconduct.

NEW TRIAL STANDARDS

Code Civ. Proc. section 657 outlines seven potential reasons for ordering a new trial. Plaintiff argues that legal errors by the Court and inadequate damages by the jury are cause for a new trial.

The Court rejects the assertions of evidentiary error and error as to the corrective instruction in closing argument. The Court finds error in its loud statements to counsel in chambers which, while unlikely to have been overheard by the jury, still indicated a degree of dissatisfaction. Nonetheless, if the corrective instruction was appropriate, a loud annoyed judge adds no demonstrable bias against Plaintiff. The corrective instruction was likely to alter the jury’s view, and it should have.

The Court has questions about whether there was instructional error. 

The Court cannot find a justification for the total lack of future pain and suffering damages suffered by Plaintiff. If a motion for new trial is not otherwise granted, the Court intends additur in some amount.

Further, there is no justification for a past medical award of less than $269,908. This totals $134,908 as an additur under section 662.5.

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT WAS IMPROPER AND COULD NOT STAND

The triggering statement was this:

                “MR. LABAT: Ladies and gentlemen, forget TBI, forget concussion. This case is about a

25-year-old young man with zero medical history. You did not hear any evidence in this

case that he had anything wrong with him before, not a single medical record, not a

single friend, mother, girlfriend of many years said, oh, yeah, he used to go to the doctor

or X or he had back problems, he had headaches, he had cognitive issues, he was very

forgetful, he had memory issues, he struggled with depression, anxiety. He didn't like

driving long drives or scary drives. You didn't hear any of that. You didn't hear any of that.

I viewed this argument then, as now, as structural misconduct. In this case, the issue of the word “depression” used by lay witnesses was excluded in a close decision. Plaintiff argued that the use of the term was inappropriate because people might consider that as a diagnosis. I granted the motion to have the lay witnesses barred from using the term depression.

Then, the former girlfriend Sadie Cupit did not show up; her deposition transcripts were littered with references to depression. Defendant asked for reconsideration on the issue, given the nature of the transcribed statements, but the Court disbelieved it would be equitable to change its ruling based on Defendant’s failure to provide the witness.

Plaintiff asserts that the argument was that there was no evidence of a pre-crash diagnosis of depression, which would be accurate and arguably within the lines, an argument likely insufficient for sua sponte action by the Court.

But that’s not what was argued. This was the argument:

“You did not hear any evidence in this case that he had anything wrong with him before, not a single medical record, not a single friend, mother, girlfriend of many years said, oh, yeah, he used to go to the doctor or X or he had back problems, he had headaches, he had cognitive issues, he was very forgetful, he had memory issues, he struggled with depression, anxiety.”

And yet, a single girlfriend had asserted repeatedly that he struggled with depression prior to the crash. Plaintiff repeatedly argues that this statement goes to a medical diagnosis, but it quite simply does more than that. It says, “[N]ot a single friend, mother, girlfriend of many years said […] he struggled with depression.”

Plaintiff argues there was no evidence of depression. Had counsel argued there was no diagnosis of depression, that would not have violated the ruling or the rules. Statements by witnesses are evidence. Ordinary people can use the ordinary term “depression” to describe others. At least one witness did so many times during a deposition.

Jackson v. Park (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1196 forbids the type of gamesmanship used in this case. In that case, counsel commented on the absence of evidence of alcohol use by his client. That evidence – which was ample – had been excluded by the trial court, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granting a new trial in that case.

In this case, the Court was faced with an unhappy choice: stand by while prejudicial misconduct occurred, or do something to correct it. As Jackson and other cases have noted, attorney misconduct is far more common than reversals for attorney misconduct.

THE COURT’S ADMONITION WAS NOT MISCONDUCT AND WAS NOT IMPROPER

Plaintiff relies on Lewis v. Bill Robertson & Sons Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 650 as a comparable case. In that case, the judge opined that “no defect in the premises had anything to do with Plaintiff’s fall.”

This is far cry from the situation here, where the Court is faced, based on counsel’s actions, with a verdict supported by a crucial assertion that was not accurate. Whether the Court’s admonition exactly corrected the errant statement cannot be the standard; the Court had an obligation for the jury to know that the statement that there was no evidence by any friends or girlfriends that Miller was depressed before the crash was inaccurate. Further, the jury should not have believed that this portion of the argument had a reasonable basis.

Plaintiff’s counsel did briefly explain the evidence that was excluded to the jury after this exchange.

Not every judge would have handled it this way. The Court can (and often should) let slide various errors, and even certain sorts of improper argument. Here, this argument – that there was no evidence from his friend or girlfriend that he was ever depressed prior to the collision – would have deceived the jury. It had been litigated both on the record and in chambers. Defense counsel had repeatedly argued that failure to include this evidence would leave the jury with the errant belief that Plaintiff did not suffer from depression.

Plaintiff created this problem. Plaintiff’s proposed cure is for me to have done nothing because counsel did not err. I disagree.

OTHER RELEVANT CONTEXT

The Court makes some other observations to put this in context; it could not have been a surprise to counsel that I would intervene if I believed there was substantial misconduct.

The Court had previously had at least two conversations with counsel about misconduct. During jury selection, defense counsel said that based on his long-time dealings with the defense expert, the jury could trust him. The Court stopped him in front of the jury and said that was improper vouching. Plaintiff cited to this exchange – appropriately, in my view – in closing argument.

During the initial examination by Plaintiff of Defendant Dopp, Plaintiff’s counsel discussed various aspects of the crash with doubtful relevance, such as leaking fluid from the engine. When asked in chambers about this, Plaintiff argued that credibility was an issue.

The Court asked why, and Plaintiff’s counsel said that it was an issue of the speed: Defendant had claimed that he was going 50 miles per hour but he may not have been honest about the speed, which may have been higher. After the Plaintiff’s expert estimated that Defendant’s speed was 50 mph or below, I indicated in chambers that those representations caused me to make rulings allowing further questioning that I would not have permitted if given accurate information.

These instances were isolated; this was not a trial otherwise infected with misconduct.

THE COURT COMMITTED JUDICIAL ERROR BY BEING TOO LOUD IN CHAMBERS

Testimony was provided that the Court severely admonished Mr. Labat in chambers. While no one outside appears to have heard the phrasing, I find it factually true that the jury heard a loud, unhappy judge. I regret that I raised my (naturally loud) voice to a degree it could be heard outside. (Chambers are not close to soundproof and are directly adjacent to the courtroom. The jury is on the far side from chambers, adjacent to Plaintiff’s counsel. The clerk sits very close to the chambers door.)

Based on the Hancock declaration, it appears the words were not audible to the jury, but the tone was. The reference in the motion to “the exchange could be heard,” is true as far that there was an exchange, but in fact the nature of the exchange appears to not have been heard by the people in the courtroom. 

Mr. Labat said in chambers that he had not said that there was no evidence of pre-collision depression. Mr. Salute, in his declaration, said I did not give him a chance to explain himself, but Mr. Labat said at the time that he believed he was only talking about medical diagnoses and that we should look at the transcript. Defense counsel shook their head “no,” at this and I agreed that was not what was said.

Mr. Labat opposed my curative instruction, which I understood. Mr. Labat proposed that I take a break and reconsider; I declined that invitation.

Any prejudice that may have occurred was minimal. The admonition likely affected the jury’s verdict, because if the jury had believed Mr. Labat’s statement that there was no depression prior to the crash, it might have affected the verdict in his favor. The admonition itself allayed that potential prejudice.

THE COURT HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL THE COURTROOM

The Court is required to uphold the integrity of the tribunal and its participants. (Judicial Canon 1, Judicial Canon 3D(2).) Even a reprimand in front of the jury may be appropriate. (People v. Chong (1999) 76 Cal.App.4^th 232.)

THERE IS NO JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL

Defendant does not cite a case that supports judicial estoppel of the request for a new trial. Vaghashia v. Vaghashia (2024) 106 Cal.App.5^th 188 is inapposite to this case.

Opposing a motion for new trial, then filing a motion for new trial has some of the earmarks of estoppel – it may well be an attempt at two bites at the apple. But this does not precisely address the problem judicial estoppel is here to cure; further, the trial was almost over.

It would be an unreasonable extension of the principle as the reliance factor here was simply to continue the trial; there was no factual finding that Plaintiff was attempting to reverse.

THE KENNEMUR ISSUES WITH DR. STRICKLAND

Plaintiff argues that the mitigation statements by Dr. Strickland were inadequately stated at deposition and his statements were insufficient to reach the Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 standard. Dr. Strickland had testified at the deposition, “So let me tell you what I meant by it is that if he does not get the treatment he should have gotten in this intervening period, that the levels of depression that I saw in him and the associate[ed] anxiety are likely to, I think, wax and wane.”

Dr. Strickland also appeared to try to avoid the Kennemur question at the deposition. This was a close case then, as now.

Defendant argues, essentially, that the Court was correct in its prior ruling and the Court carefully considered that ruling. This does not necessarily mean the ruling was correct and the Court would appreciate further assistance.

THE MITIGATION INSTRUCTION MAY HAVE BEEN IN ERROR

Defendant does not provide a legal argument for the issue of specificity required for the mitigation instruction. Such an argument would assist the Court.

INSUFFICIENT PAST MEDICAL DAMAGES WERE AWARDED

Defendant’s billing analyst, after cross-examination and redirect, came to a figure of $269,908. Defendant asserts that some of the medical care was unnecessary, but the evidence provided is weak. Defendant’s own billing analyst came to this figure using a Howell analysis.

INSUFFICIENT FUTURE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES WERE AWARDED

Defendant cites to Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740 for the principal that future damages need not be awarded even when future medical care is. This case does defeat Plaintiff’s claim that such damages should be automatic with future medical care, and the distinctions do not appear to logically alter the statement.

Defendant further relies on its witnesses who said no traumatic brain injury occurred, but those witnesses were not credible as against Dr. Strickland, who found that a traumatic brain injury occurred, that Defendant suffered, and continues to suffer. Dr. Strickland had explicitly tested Plaintiff and was the key defense expert.

In this case, where future suffering was asserted by Dr. Strickland and no mitigation defense was made available, some amount had to be awarded.

Had some number been chosen, the Court would defer to the jury’s findings. Here, the Court must independently review the record and determine an equitable figure if a new trial is not granted on the mitigation issue.

The Court will hear argument, and if the Court takes the matter under submission, it will be for a very brief period. The Court apologizes for the delay in ruling.

CV-24-006618 - CATT, TODD MICHAEL vs RENTERIA, MARCOS, Jr – a) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending Determination on Defendants' Motion to Strike Doe Amendments and Motion to Quash Deposition Notice -MOOT. b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Amendments to Complaint Based on Lack of Good Faith, Abuse of Process, and Collusive Misrepresentation – DENIED.

1. As determination of the motion is being made, the matter is moot.

2. Each side cites cases at the demurrer or summary judgment stage, which we are not at.

Plaintiff  argues that these were the facts as he understood them at the time he filed his complaint: Stanislaus Animal Services investigated on the day of Plaintiff’s accident. According to the officer’s report, Ms. Renteria claimed ownership of the two dogs that were killed as a result of the collision. Mr. Renteria then joined the discussion and contended the dogs were strays. The animal control officer issued two citations to Mr. Renteria, and the third dog, which was injured, was recovered from the Renterias’ property. The injured dog appeared to be related to the other two dogs that were killed. On these facts, Plaintiff filed suit against the Renterias. (See Pl.’s Opp., at pp. 3-4.)

It was only at Plaintiff’s deposition on April 13, 2026, that Plaintiff became aware of a possible dog breeding farm across the street from the Renterias. Thereafter, Plaintiff acted promptly to amend his complaint. (See Pl.’s Opp., at pp. 5-6.)

Plaintiff had sent an evidence preservation letter to “Windy Hill Farm” on January 23, 2024, and a follow-up letter to “Gerald Mansager” and “Windy Hill Doodles” on February 15, 2024, and asserted there may be some liability for Windy Hill Doodles if it did not preserve documents. Whether this was a pro forma effort at preservation or based on some actual theory of liability is unclear.

Plaintiff makes a sufficient facial showing to permit amendment. The Court makes no findings at this time as to a potential demurrer or motion for summary judgment.

The same logic applies to the Renteria’s cross-complaint. The question here is not whether the amendment will survive further scrutiny, but whether it was void ab initio. Based on Plaintiff’s claims, it was not.

CV-25-001199 - ALMANZA, KRISTOPHER vs MODESTO ON ICE INC – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment -   Denied.

Legal Standards

A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at p. 851.) A defendant meets their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party shows that “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that “a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

“Because of the drastic nature of the summary judgment procedure and the importance of safeguarding the adverse party's right to a trial, the moving party must make a strong showing. His affidavits are strictly construed and the opposing party's are liberally construed.” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1038.) All doubts as to whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment or adjudication. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.) Thus, evidence that is equivocal or from which conflicting inferences may be drawn is insufficient to meet the movant’s burden. (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 297.)

Request for Judicial Notice

In support of its motion, Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint and the answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

The request for judicial notice is unnecessary as the Court probably need not make such a ruling to consider papers filed in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

Discussion

A motion for summary judgment is framed by the pleadings. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381; Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.) 

Here, there are two events that give rise to the pleading: (1) the state of the ice; and (2) Defendant’s employees’ alleged failure to timely offer aid (see SAC ¶¶ 18, 22, 44). The only fact that Moving Defendant lists for the latter issue is SUF No. 18: “Plaintiff claims in discovery and the operative complaint after he fell employees of Modesto On Ice, Inc. refused to call him an ambulance but at his deposition he testified and clarified they did not refuse to call him an ambulance.” Plaintiff disputes this characterization. (See Resp. Sep. Stmt., SUF No. 18; AMF Nos. 6-8.) His issue was with the timing of the offer to render aid. Specifically, in his deposition, Plaintiff stated that immediately after his injury, he had to partially crawl off the ice; no employees helped him. Then two employees came up to him. He asked for paramedics or a wheelchair.

They stated that they did not have either available and instead questioned him regarding the accident. Only after gaining material information from him regarding the accident did they offer to call 911, by which time, Plaintiff had determined that it would be faster to have his mother (who was present at the rink) drive him to the hospital.

Because the separate statement does not adequately refute the issue of failing to provide timely aid, Moving Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden of proof.

Even assuming that the foregoing issue has been adequately addressed, there are still triable issues of material fact. (See, e.g., SUF Nos. 11 [Defendant claims no one else fell that day, but Plaintiff states he saw people fall]; SUF No. 13 [dispute over compliance with industry standards].)

Defendant stated on reply that it found some of Plaintiff’s evidence objectionable. The Court was unable to locate a set of objections filed at or around the time that the reply was filed. In any case, with regard to the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, it appears that most of the objections go to weight, not admissibility. The Court does not consider the presence or absence of insurance for any purpose. 

CV-26-006975 – IN RE: PARKSIDE VILLAS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION - Petitioner's Petition to Reduce Required Voting Percentage for Amendment to CC&Rs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 4275 and Corporations Code Section 7515 -HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions relating to service of the petition.

 

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

CV-25-005895 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs FRISBIE, JEFFREY - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.

On August 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in requests for admission be deemed admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280. There is no opposition on file.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff propounded 11 requests for admission on Defendant. Defendant did not respond to the requests. Objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. There is no proof of service of the proposed order on file. Moving party to serve and re-submit the proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

CV-25-010560 - KAUR, SANDEEP vs BAKHSHIYAR, KAMBIZ H - Defendant's Patelco Credit Union's Motion for Leave To file Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur– GRANTED.

On August 4, 2026, Defendant Patelco Credit Union (“Patelco”) submitted a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur. Plaintiff timely opposed and Patelco timely replied.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, a court must grant leave to file a compulsory cross‑complaint if the moving party “acted in good faith.” “A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94.)

Here, the Complaint was filed on October 27, 2025. Defendant Patelco filed its Answer on January 9, 2026. Patelco subsequently discovered facts surrounding Plaintiff’s conduct which form the basis for its cross-complaint. Patelco then filed the instant motion on August 4, 2026. No trial date has been set and the parties have not yet exchanged written discovery. Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition fail to demonstrate that Patelco acted in bad faith.

Pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendant Patelco is granted leave to file the Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the August 4, 2026 Declaration of Darrell V. Nguyen, and shall file and serve the Cross-Complaint within ten days of notice of entry of the order.

The proposed order submitted in connection with the motion references Exhibit A instead of Exhibit C and also references appearances by specific attorneys and arguments of counsel, which may not be accurate. Moving party to submit revised proposed order within five court days consistent with this ruling.

PR-25-001101 – IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Initial Responses and Production to Requests for Production, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motions on calendar that day.

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

CV-24-006834 – GRAYS, WILLIE, Jr vs JAMES, PATRICIA – Plaintiff Willie Grays Jr.’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint – DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s reply brief exceeds the page limit prescribed by Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1113(d). Therefore, the Court has not considered the material contained in the excess pages.

While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, the circumstances herein portray a situation where Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.)  Given the procedural history of both this action and the underlying medical malpractice action, and specifically Plaintiff’s repeated judicial admissions with regard to the date of discovery of his cause of action in the medical case, the Court finds Plaintiff’s explanation for the inconsistent allegations in his proposed amended pleading insufficient and can only conclude that the proposed amendment herein is offered for the sole purpose of avoiding an adverse outcome. Therefore, granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the proposed amended pleading is certain to be disregarded via application of the sham pleading doctrine. (See, e.g. Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 196; American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western Transport (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 878-880.)

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for relief from the binding effect of his multiple judicial admissions herein based on the alleged failures of his attorneys. (See, e.g., Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175.)

CV-22-005423 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs AYALA, CRISTIAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Forfeiture Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11488.5(b) – DENIED without prejudice.

The Court notes that Petitioner failed to serve the instant motion on Mr. Ayala’s counsel, and no substitution of attorneys has been submitted. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that proper notice of the instant proceeding was provided.

CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial [CRC 3.1332] – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000355 - CHAVEZ FAMILY TRUST vs WRIGHT, SHAUN – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.

The parties and/or their counsel are directed to appear and be prepared to address the issue of the discrepancy in the property address in the 3-Day Notice and the potential actions available to the Court and the parties as a result, given that possession has already been returned to Plaintiff and Defendant concedes that he no longer uses the property for business purposes as of October 2025.

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

 

CV-22-004359 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs PEREZ, DESTINY – a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One As to Destiny Perez - HEARING REQUIRED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions- HEARING REQUIRED. c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – HEARING REQUIRED.

a) The Court notes proof of service of the discovery request shows that the defendant was served on 6/25/25, by regular mail to FCI Waseca in Waseca Minnesota. Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit A, page 19.  However, the printout attached from Find an Inmate attached as Exhibit B shows that the defendant is located at the FCI in Tallahassee Florida.  Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit B, page 21.

The proofs of service for the moving papers show that the defendant was served on 6/30/26, by overnight mail to FCI Tallahassee. 

Prior to addressing the Motion, the court requires clarification concerning whether the defendant was properly served with the discovery requests and with the moving papers. 

b) The Court notes proof of service of the discovery request shows that the defendant was served on 6/25/25, by regular mail to FCI Waseca in Waseca Minnesota. Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit A, page 19.  However, the printout attached from Find an Inmate attached as Exhibit B shows that the defendant is located at the FCI in Tallahassee Florida.  Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit B, page 21.

The proofs of service for the moving papers show that the defendant was served on 6/30/26, by overnight mail to FCI Tallahassee. 

Prior to addressing the Motion, the court requires clarification concerning whether the defendant was properly served with the discovery requests and with the moving papers. 

c) The Court notes proof of service of the discovery request shows that the defendant was served on 6/25/25, by regular mail to FCI Waseca in Waseca Minnesota. Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit A, page 19.  However, the printout attached from Find an Inmate attached as Exhibit B shows that the defendant is located at the FCI in Tallahassee Florida.  Declaration of Aurora Maddocks, Exhibit B, page 21.

The proofs of service for the moving papers show that the defendant was served on 6/30/26, by overnight mail to FCI Tallahassee. 

Prior to addressing the Motion, the court requires clarification concerning whether the defendant was properly served with the discovery requests and with the moving papers. 

The following is the tentative rulings for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

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