Civil Tentative Rulings

April 16, 2026

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

CV-25-009800 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VELAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Non-Appearance – HEARING REQUIRED.

Defendant filed a late opposition to the motion. The Court requires the parties’ input.

CV-26-001100 – In Re: REFLECTIONS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC – Petitioner’s Petition for an Order Reducing the Required Voting Percentage and Approval of Restated CC&R [Civil Code 4275] – HEARING REQUIRED.

Adequate notice of the petition was given and there appears to be no opposition. The Court will hear from any opposing parties, should there be any, at the hearing but is inclined to grant the petition.

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

CV-21-005754 – GAVERT, JAMES vs CF MODESTO LLC – a) Defendant, The Estate of Michael Brodie’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to May 21 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) Defendant, The Estate of Michael Brodie’s Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to May 21 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The demurrer is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41, which requires that a parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before filing a demurrer.

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41 was the delivery of a written communication on January 8, 2026, via email. (Declaration of Nicholas M. Ponce, ¶ 3.) Defendant’s letter states that the letter “shall represent Dr. Brodie’s written meet and confer efforts.” (Declaration of Nicholas M. Ponce, Ex. B at 1.) Plaintiff received Defendant’s letter and gave Defendant extensions to file a responsive pleading but it does not appear that Plaintiff responded to the substance of Defendant’s letter.

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 May 21, 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 § 430.41(a) by no later than May 13, 2026. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than May 14, 2026, describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-21-001242 – IN THE MATTER OF MAXWELL HEINZLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST – Trustee’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice.

The motion is procedurally defective. The proofs of service fail to reflect service on the bond company as required by Probate Code § 1213. And it appears that no proposed order was submitted or served as required by rule 3.1362(d) of the California Rules of Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

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

CV-24-007379 – ROBERTS, SCOTT A vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses – GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $25,602.23.

The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5^th 462.)

Attorney’s Fees

Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court’s experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs’ counsel herein should be reduced as follows:

0.4 hours claimed by Ms. Zhang for duplicative time billed for interoffice communications between counsel and staff.

0.8 hours claimed by Ms. Jiang for duplicative time billed for interoffice communications between counsel and staff.

2.5 hours claimed by Mr. Gomez for non-compensable clerical tasks and time that appears duplicative of that billed by counsel for the same tasks

Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community. (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the community where the action is pending. (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.)  Lastly, the law provides that the trial judge is “the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49.) As a result, the Court finds that the requested rates are not reflective of the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County and should be reduced.

Therefore, the hourly rate for Ms. Zhang is approved in the reduced amount of $450.  The hourly rate for Ms. Jiang is approved in the reduced amount of $400.  The hourly rate for the paralegal, Mr. Gomez, is approved in the reduced amount of $200.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the unchallenged memorandum of costs filed on 12-12-25, in the amount of $750.23.

Summary of Award –

 

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
Zhang	0.6	450	270.00
Jiang	56.3	400	22,520.00
Gomez	10.31	200	2,062.00
		Total Fees	24,852.00
		Costs	750.23
		AWARD	$25,602.23

UD-26-000272 – LO ASSOCIATES vs BRYANT, LACHASA – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.

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

CV-25-001822 – NAITAMAR, SELMANE vs NAITAMAR, HAJER – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part. c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, and for Sanctions – DENIED. d) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part. e) Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order – DENIED.

a) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the numerous discovery motions by the parties on calendar and would like to remind the parties that discovery is meant to be self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424) . Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 127).

Continued inability to resolve discovery disputes will likely result in a reference to a discovery referee.

Incomplete or evasive responses, and meritless objections to discovery entitle a party to further responses. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300 (a)(1)).  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to further complete responses to his Form Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6, 2.9, 2.10, 15.1 and 17.1.

A party may assert objections in response to Form Interrogatories.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.240). Defendant properly asserted attorney client and attorney product privileges in response to Form Interrogatories Nos. 501-50.6.

As to Form Interrogatories Numbers 2.3, and 2.4, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the requested information is relevant to this action or how said requests may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010).

Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions of $1050 against Defendant’s Counsel for his reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in filing the present motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d)). 

b) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the numerous discovery motions by the parties on calendar and would like to remind the parties that discovery is meant to be self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424) . Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 127).

Continued inability to resolve discovery disputes will likely result in a reference to a discovery referee.

Incomplete or evasive responses, and meritless objections to discovery entitle a party to further responses. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300 (a)(1)).  To the extent that Defendant has agreed to provide further response to Requests Numbers 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 20, the court takes this into account.

A party may assert objections in response to Special  Interrogatories.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.240). Defendant properly asserted attorney client and attorney product privileges.

There appears to be an issue with Defendants responsive statements stating Defendant “will identify” responsive documents. The court understands this to mean that the documents that follow amount to the identified documents. Plaintiff apparently understood this to mean that the identification would be provided in the future. To the extent that the identification requested has not been provided Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 21.

Otherwise, Plaintiff is entitled to further responses to his Special Interrogatories Numbers 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 20.

Plaintiff is not entitled to further responses to his Special Interrogatory Number 24 based on Defendant’s assertion of her privacy rights. (California Constitution Art. 1, § 1; Willis v. Superior Ct., (1980)112 Cal. App. 3d 277)

Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions of $660 against Defendant’s Counsel for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d)).

c) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the numerous discovery motions by the parties on calendar and would like to remind the parties that discovery is meant to be self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424) . Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 127).

Continued inability to resolve discovery disputes will likely result in a reference to a discovery referee.

Defendant appropriately responded to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Further Responses is hereby denied. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2033.210 (b), 2033.220 (a) and 2033.230 (b))

d) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the numerous discovery motions by the parties on calendar and would like to remind the parties that discovery is meant to be self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court, (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424) . Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 127).

Continued inability to resolve discovery disputes will likely result in a reference to a discovery referee.

Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production , Set One are substantially Code Complaint.( Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.210, 2031.310 and 3031.320).

Defendant’s federal and state tax returns are privileged. ( Brown v. Superior Ct., (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 141;Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., (1957) 49 Cal. 2d 509). Plaintiff has not asserted a compelling need or the lack of alternative means of obtaining the requested information that would overcome this privilege and Defendant’s asserted privacy rights (Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., (1994)7 Cal. 4th 1).

Defendant’s latest refinance application and credit score may properly be produced subject to a protective order.

Defendant’s assertions of attorney client privilege and attorney work product are required to be supported by a privilege log. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Ct., (2015)242 Cal. App. 4th 1116). 

Accordingly, Defendant shall provide further responses in the form of a privilege log supporting her claims of attorney work product and attorney privilege. 

Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs of $560 imposed against Defendant’s Counsel.

e) The court finds that the dueling claims related to the issue of purchase and ownership of the property at issue and the 2016 and 2025 grant deeds related thereto, and related issues, support the additional fifteen (20) Special Interrogatories propounded by Defendant herein. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.030, 040 and 090; Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.020).    

The court also finds that the dueling claims related to the issue of purchase and ownership of the property at issue and the 2016 and 2025 grant deeds related thereto, and related issues, support the additional Forty-Seven (47) Requests for Admissions propounded by Defendant herein. (Code of Civ. Proc §§ 2033.040, 2033.080).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order is denied.

Special Interrogatories Numbers 28-32 are hereby stricken as prayed.

Requests for Admissions Numbers 41, 75-82, 85, 91-92, 94-95, and 104, are hereby stricken as prayed.

Plaintiff request for costs is denied.

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 for Department 19***