Civil Tentative Rulings

April 21, 2026

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

CV-22-001527 - JASSO, ROSALINDA vs HERNANDEZ, KELLY PAIGE - Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant's Motion for Enforcement of Judgment, And Reimbursement of Costs, for Attorney Fees and Attorney Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is unlikely to grant the motion as it already distributed the proceeds and signed an order propounded by Plaintiff as to the breakdown of money it was entitled to. Further, there is a notice of appeal.

CV-24-006578 - SHAFFER, DEE vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

Preliminarily, by agreement of the parties and an oral express waiver of any irregularity given the filing of the Second Amended Complaint during the pendency of this motion, the Court has jurisdiction. Under State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^th 1127), waiver of this issue appears to be permissible and in this case there was an express waiver to avoid the need to refile the motion. The Court and the parties each believe that I have jurisdiction and therefore reach the merits.

The issue of a loose cable has been abandoned by both sides.

 

Objections:

Defendant’s objections to the Moore declaration:

1. SUSTAINED. The Best Evidence Rule suffered setbacks over the years and was entirely repealed effective January 1, 1999. Nonetheless, see the discussion of foundation below.

2. SUSTAINED.

3. SUSTAINED.

4. SUSTAINED as to foundation.

5. SUSTAINED. (See, for instance, Garibay v. Hammat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4^th 735.)

6. SUSTAINED as to testimony of Mr. Daniel, OVERRULED as to conclusion based on other evidence.

7. OVERRULED. It is, to some degree, speculation, but that goes to weight.

8. SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff currently alleges a slip and fall over a floor outlet box at the Stanislaus County Veterans Center on September 21, 2023. The fall caused serious injuries. The outlet box is a silver metal square or rectangle on the floor with a round metal cover where electrical plugs might be used. The box appears to have tape residue on it from some type of industrial tape. The person overseeing the venue, Robert Daniel took a picture of the box after Plaintiff described the fall and it shows a round metal cover raised slightly.

Defendant’s expert, Bong Walsh, opined that the height of the outlet base and the flap relative to the base and concluded that the maximum height of the entire apparatus was a maximum of 9/32 of an inch, with the outlet itself being 1/8 to 5/32 of an inch, and the flap being an additional 3/32 to 1/8 of an inch. These height differentials are consistent with safety standards on walking surfaces

Plaintiff’s expert Robert Moore provided a contrary declaration in which he asserts that the cover was resting on a screw, and that the combined size of the outlet and cover was about ½ of an inch, which posed a risk to elderly people. Plaintiff’s expert measured the height of the outlet box at 0.19 inches (photos 21 and 22) and the height of the resting cover was 0.10 inches. Moore asserts that a normally elderly step clearance is 0.44 inches.

Moore asserts that if a contrasting color tape were put on the outlet box the injury would not have occurred. The color photos show a silver metallic outlet box on a wooden floor.

Moore also opined that Daniel’s review of the site was insufficient because he did not see the uplifted outlet cover. Moore does not offer evidence as to how he knew the outlet cover was in the same state when reviewed as when it was tripped over.

ANALYSIS

The question posed here is simple: Is the Moore declaration sufficient evidence to overcome the Walsh declaration’s conclusions. It is not, for the reasons outlined below.

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, as modified (July 11, 2001) (Aguilar).) “A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id., at p. 851.) A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies its initial burden by proving either that one or more elements of the cause of action 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 material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense. (Ibid.) The facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be accepted as true. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.)

The initial burden by Defendant has been reached. He has testimony that the total change in elevation is, at most, slightly over a quarter inch which even pursuant to Moore’s declaration would not normally be a safety hazard.

The Court is obliged to consider the factual basis for the expert’s conclusions. (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4^th 493.) Moore asserts that the cover was entirely on top of the screw, but the photographs taken by Moore in the resting position appear at least similar to the photographs taken near in time to the fall. The cause or reason why the screw would hold up the cover before and not now are not provided.

Moore also uses photographs of cover in a partially open position, but in order to do so is holding it with his hand. At the time of the fall, the cover was not being held with an open hand.

Crucially, the Moore declaration does not establish the foundation for the height of the upraised cover, either through photogrammetry or any other method. Further, while there are many photos attached, Moore omits any reference to the specific photograph which would constitute a 0.47 inch deviation in height from the floor. The use of photos where the raised portion is raised by holding it there do not indicate how this would have occurred without holding them there.

The Court also does not accept the representation by Moore that “there was minimal color differentiation between the uplifted outlet cover and the adjacent floor surface.” Moore does not expand on this, but the Court viewed the color photographs with care. Moore’s statement that a color change between the outlet and the floor would have prevented this appears inconsistent with the Court’s understanding of colors.

Defendant also argues lack of notice, primarily by arguing that the condition did not exist. As the Court finds insufficient evidence to overcome Defendant’s showing, the lack of notice argument is moot. If the Court reached the lack of notice argument, it would find that Plaintiff’s showing was insufficient to overcome the Daniels’ declaration assertion of regular inspections before events. (See Restivo v. City of Petaluma (2025) 111 Cal.App.5^th 267.)

This is an unusually sympathetic plaintiff who appears to have suffered a serious injury. Nonetheless, the experts agree that a 0.29 inch height differential is permissible and does not normally pose a safety hazard, even if it did here. The Court is bound to grant the motion based on the admissible facts.

Defendant is to prepare the order.

CV-24-009851 - CHAVIRA, JAVIER CASTRO vs MODESTO SNF OPERATIONS LLC - a) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Modesto SNF Operations LLC dba Golden Modesto Care Center and Request for Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED. b) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One on Defendant Modesto SNF Operations LLC dba Golden Modesto Care Center and Request for Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED. c) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive Opco Manager LLC and Request for Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED. d) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive Operations Holdings LLC and Request for Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED. e) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Cafive SNF Consulting LLC and Request for Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED. f) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant CH Cafive Holdings LLC and Request for Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. g) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Witzcorp LLC and Request for Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED.

a–g)

In each case, discovery was served on Defendant in October 2025. Defendants did not respond timely and a stipulation was entered into on February 19, 2026. Pursuant to that stipulation, Defendants were to provide responses in a format and under a timeline agreed to by the parties. Defendants did not and propose that they are immune from orders and sanctions because they will get the information to Plaintiffs.

The Court does not know what the status of discovery is because Defendants said they would provide it “prior to the April 21 hearing.” This is untimely not only for Plaintiffs, but also for the Court’s ability to analyze any potential issues. The Court needs the parties’ input on what additional steps the Court needs to take to enforce the discovery statutes and the agreement between the parties.

The Court intends to award sanctions as follows: $1,335 for the first motion and $485 for each of the other motions, as to the named defendants, since much of the work is duplicative. If discovery has not been completed, the Court intends to increase the sanctions amount.

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

CV-25-012174 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs HENRIQUES, JOSEPH K - Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to both (1) a 4,082,535 square foot (93.722 acre) fee acquisition and, (2) a 1,407 square foot non-exclusive permanent access easement from a portion of the real property identified as 556 N. Gates Road, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, and bearing Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 012-060-002, 012-060-006, 012-060-007, and 012-060-008  by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $4,753, 000.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of

the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within (30) days of service of this Order.

Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

CV-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Protech Phone Repair Inc. - DROPPED.

Pursuant to the notice of withdrawal filed by the moving party on April 15, 2026, the hearing on this motion is DROPPED.

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

CV-25-001934 – OCHOA, YEREXIA vs WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC – Defendant Western Dental Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of the Individual Claims and Dismiss the Class Action Claims – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Based on review of the papers and evidence submitted, and the lack of opposition thereto, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement, which is subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act and applies to the claims asserted in the instant action. Defendant has also demonstrated that Plaintiff has refused to submit the instant dispute to arbitration. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the agreement. (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)

In addition, the Court finds that the class action waiver contained in the subject agreement is valid and enforceable herein, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss the class claims asserted in the action is GRANTED. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4^th 348, 364.)

All further proceedings herein shall be stayed pending completion of the arbitration.  (9 U.S.C. § 3; Code Civ. Proc. § 1282.4.)

CV-25-010496 – HOME OXYGEN COMPANY INC vs COMMUNITY HOSPICE INC – Defendant Community Hospice, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Home Oxygen Company, Inc.’s Complaint to Damages - OVERRULED, in part; SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend.

As to the 1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the 2^nd Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel, and 3rd Cause of Action for Fraud/False Promise,, the Court finds the allegations in the Complaint sufficient at this stage to support these claims. Defendant’s arguments appear to appear to require the resolution of factual issues, which is not appropriate on demurrer. Therefore, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to these causes of action.

As to the 4^th Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation, the Court finds that the claim seeks only economic damages arising from the parties’ commercial relationship and is, therefore, barred by the economic loss rule. (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 915, 922; Moore v. Centrelake Medical Group, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 515; Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118.) Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to this cause of action.

Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be submitted within 20 days.

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

CV-23-002008 – HUCKABY, GORDON vs PACIFIC SOUTHWEST CONTAINER LLC – Final Fairness Hearing – HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein. 

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. 

Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).

CV-24-005909 – TORRES, MICHAEL vs GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC – Final Fairness Hearing - CONTINUED.

This hearing is continued to July 7, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-008297 – BISHOP, STEPHEN vs US AUTO LEASING INC – Defendant US Auto Leasing, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1281.2, 1281.4, and 1281.7; to Stay the Proceedings Pending Completion of Arbitration – DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties that covers the present dispute.

Plaintiff has the right of arbitrator election and Defendant, the right of approval. Defendant does not have the right under the arbitration agreement to elect AAA as the arbitrator.

To the extent that Plaintiff has not refused to arbitrate the present dispute, Defendant’s motion is premature.  (Rosenson v. Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 688; (HM DG, Inc. v. Amini (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1100).

The arbitration provision that requires Defendant to approve Plaintiff’s election of arbitrator is illusory and therefore unenforceable. (Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc.,( 2012 )204 Cal. App. 4th 1425; Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC, (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 373).

Said provision is also procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion, and substantively unconscionable for being unfairly one-sided and as a result, unenforceable. (Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp., (2004)120 Cal. App. 4th 1267; Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83).

As the method agreed upon between the parties for the selection of an arbitrator has failed, the court shall appoint an arbitrator for the parties. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.6).  Both parties shall, within 14 days of the date of this order provide the Court with their list of no more than seven arbitrators each from which the Court shall choose five arbitrators. The parties will agree on an arbitrator based on the court’s list. 

Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied, without prejudice. 

Proceedings herein will be stayed upon completion of the arbitrator selection and a reference of the dispute to arbitration.

The parties are each hereby ordered to submit their list of seven arbitrators to the court no later than May 6, 2026. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.6). Within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court, the parties shall jointly select the arbitrator and notify the court of said selection, whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.6). 

CV-25-008399 – VILLAGRAN, ERMI L vs FITZPATRICK, DENNIS – Defendants US Construction, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Christine Fitzpatrick, and Joseph Thomas Fitzpatrick’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Ermi L. Villagran’s Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

The Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts establishing that Defendants UC Construction, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Christine Fitzpatrick, or Joseph Thomas Fitzpatrick were Plaintiff’s employer, joint employer, or otherwise subject to liability under the Labor Code. (Capito v. San Jose Healthcare Sys., LP, (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 273; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550; ( Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35;CCP § 430.10(e))

Plaintiff relies on conclusory and undifferentiated allegations that Defendants exercised control, without pleading defendant‑specific facts supporting employer status, alter‑ego liability, or individual liability. (Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. v. George, (2025)114 Cal. App. 5th 655; Leek v. Cooper, (2011)194 Cal. App. 4th 399). Plaintiff’s allegations are similarly inadequate here.

Because each cause of action is pleaded against all defendants and rests on employer status, and the Complaint does not allege facts establishing employer/joint employer/alter ego as to the demurring defendants, each cause of action is insufficient as to them.

The demurrer for uncertainty is also sustained based on Plaintiff’s failure to differentiate Defendants or their actions. Naming inconsistencies also exist in the pleadings. To the extent that this deficiency impairs Defendants’ ability to respond the demurrer is also sustained on this basis. (CCP § 430.10(f))

Any amended complaint must plead defendant-specific facts supporting employer/joint employer control and/or an alter ego or statutory basis for individual liability.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Any First Amended Complaint shall be filed and served within ten (10) days of service of notice of this ruling.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is hereby sustained. (Code of Civ Proc § 430.10).

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-26-000304 - REDWOODS MODESTO OWNER CA LLC vs HENLEY, MARKUS - Defendant’s Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.