December 9, 2025

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

CV-24-000890 – SYNCHRONY BANK vs VEGA, ARIANNA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Dismissal – DENIED, without prejudice.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) requires Plaintiff to demonstrate that the judgment it seeks to vacate was entered due to Plaintiff’s “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”.  While it is true that a slight amount of evidence is necessary to meet this burden - the instant motion provides the Court with no evidence as to the elements set forth in the statute.

CV-24-009904 – PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES vs ARTEAGA, YADIRA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (C.C.P. Section 2033.280) –GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendant has failed to respond without good cause to the Requests for Admissions propounded on February 28, 2025. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Requests for Admissions are DEEMED ADMITTED.

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

CV-24-002790 – JEROME, MICHAEL vs RUNNELS, JEFFREY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file the first amended complaint and a proposed order that conforms to this ruling within ten court days.

CV-24-004371 – BERGER, KEVIN vs HERNANDEZ, DAVID – a) Receiver’s Motion to Reject Lease of 701 East Canal Drive, Turlock, California – CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) 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 January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. c) Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate with CV-25-005628 – CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a–c) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, these matters are CONTINUED to January 6, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

CV-25-002638 – GONZALEZ, GERMAN vs AA SMOG STAR CERTIFIED – Defendant’s Motion to Strike – DROPPED.

Pursuant to the Joint Status Statement Regarding Meet and Confer filed on November 24, 2025, the motion to strike has been withdrawn, and the hearing on this motion is DROPPED.

PR-25-000958 – IN THE MATTER OF THE NIEDERREUTHERPOMEROY REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST – Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Permitting Her to File or Lodge Exhibits Under Seal – DENIED without prejudice.

By way of this motion, Petitioner seeks to file all exhibits to her Heggstad petition under seal. The exhibits are described as follows:

        Exhibit 1: The Trust

        Exhibit 2: Petitioner’s pour over Will

        Exhibit 3: Mr. Niederreuther’s pour over Will

        Exhibit 4: Agreement and Assignment of property to the Trust

        Exhibit 5: Trust Schedule A

The sealing is not narrowly tailored. First, the sole document that involves only Petitioner’s interest and that is clearly protected by law while Petitioner is alive is Petitioner’s own will, which did not need to be submitted in the first place. Her will, which is revocable, is immaterial to the Heggstad determination. Second, Petitioner has no privacy interest that she can claim in her deceased husband’s will. While the will was entitled to protection during the decedent’s lifetime, that high level of protection ended on his death. Third, even accepting arguendo that Petitioner has a privacy interest in the other estate-planning documents, the proposed sealing fails to confine itself to sensitive information. The sealing of entire documents is rarely appropriate if one is strictly complying with Rules 2.550 and 2.551 of the California Rules of Court. 

In addition, the Court notes that neither of the children of the decedent were given notice of this petition. While notice to them under the governing rules for a noticed motion was not strictly required because they have not appeared in this matter (cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 1014), given the nature of the request at issue and further given that they are over age 11, in the Court’s view, they were entitled to notice of these proceedings.

For the above reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 2.551(b)(6) of the California Rules of Court, if the Moving Party does not notify the court within 10 days that she wishes to have the lodged records publicly filed, the clerk is directed to (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form.

The Court notes that it has historically heard many Heggstad petitions and cannot recall ever being asked to seal the accompanying exhibits submitted with the petition. Nonetheless, it leaves the door open for a new, more narrowly tailored motion to be filed in the event that there are special circumstances at play here.

 

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

CV-24-004267 – VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint – GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a)(1) and 576 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, and in light of California’s liberal policy favoring amendment and the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of this order. Responsive pleadings shall be due per Code of Civil Procedure section 471.5(a). The Court will entertain reasonable scheduling adjustments to accommodate any summary judgment practice necessitated by the amendment.

CV-25-000613 – LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III – Defendants’ Robert Francis Dunhouse III and Citizens Medical Response’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED.

The Court finds that, despite the lack of opposition, Defendants, as the moving parties, have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims herein. Specifically, the motion fails to identify undisputed material facts demonstrating that the claims asserted in the Complaint arise from allegations of negligent provision of medical care rather than general negligence arising from duties owed to the general public in the operation of a motor vehicle. (See, e.g. Gutierrez v. Tostado (2025) 18 Cal.5th 222, 244.) 

Additionally, the Court notes that the motion relies on appellate opinions that have been overruled by the Cal. Supreme Court in this regard. (Ibid.)

CV-25-003237 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs FLORES, ISAAC A - Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4^th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-008224 – SALAS, LADONNA S vs MODESTO MMP VI INC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively Stay Proceedings; Alternatively Request for Statement of Decision – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to January 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court requires more time to review this matter.

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

CV-23-006110 – LARGENT, CINDY vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant Minghui Liu, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on Plaintiff’s motion

The Court finds that good cause exists for the continuance of this Motion for Summary Judgment to permit the deposition of critical witnesses Drs. Liu and Verde.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c )

Therefore, this motion is continued to February 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

The Case Management Conference scheduled for January 16, 2026, is vacated and reset to February 23, 2026.

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***