Civil Tentative Rulings

October 14, 2026

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

CV-24-001444 – ROCHA, VERONICA vs PEAHI BAY LLC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED to January 27, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 21.

Having reviewed and considered the declaration filed on October 2, 2026, the Court CONTINUES the hearing to January 27, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 21. Settlement administrator is directed to file a supplemental declaration no later than five court days before the continued hearing detailing any uncashed funds and confirming any uncashed funds were sent to the California State Controller’s Office – Unclaimed Property Fund.

The settlement administrator filed a declaration on October 2, 2026. The declaration states that all payments have been disbursed. The deadline for Participating Settlement Class Members to cash their Individual Settlement Payment check is November 30, 2026. Pursuant to settlement agreement approved by the Court, the uncashed funds will be sent to the California State Controller’s Office – Unclaimed Property Fund after the check void date. 

CV-26-004282 – ABBOTT, MICHAEL KELLY vs BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA – a) Petitioner’s Motion for Trial de Novo – DENIED. b) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Application for Stay of Administrative Decision – DENIED.

a) Petitioner’s motion for Court trial de novo on limited issues is DENIED. Petitioner cites no authority allowing a separate Court trial in administrative mandamus proceedings initiated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

Petitioner’s right to a professional license constitutes a fundamental right and, “ ‘the superior court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo in which the court must examine the administrative record for errors of law and exercise its independent judgment upon the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Hoang v. California State Bd. of Pharmacy (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 448, 455.) “Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(c).)

b) Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration re: application for stay of administrative decision is DENIED. Plaintiff does not present “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” warranting modification of the Court’s ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.)

This Court used the proper standard to deny without prejudice Petitioner’s application for a stay of administrative decision. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.5(h)(1).) The Court’s local rules are not in conflict with the statute. Local Rule 3.15 subdivision E clearly indicates that a request for stay in an administrative mandamus case may be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(h)(1).

If the local rules were in conflict with the statute, the statute would control. (See Gharraee v. Trader Joe’s Company (2026) 122 Cal.App.5^th 786.

Petitioner suggests that proceedings at the administrative hearing are “as charitably as can be stated[…] similar to a high school mock trial.” Petitioner says that hearsay evidence would not get into the Superior Court, but this court allows hearsay routinely in cases in which hearsay evidence is expressly allowed.

As charitably as can be stated, I choose to consider this as denigrating neither the administrative hearing process in general nor high school mock trials.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

PR-22-001206 – Estate of BRITT, DEBRAH – Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – CONTINUED to November 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to November 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for a copy of all moving papers and an amended notice of motion to be filed and served on Rebecca Zanella. The client is also to be served with the amended notice of motion and a new proposed order. Moving Counsel is directed to file and serve the revised documents within five court days.

Ms. Zanella has signed a bond waiver that was filed into this case, which arguably constitutes an appearance. Furthermore, given that counsel is seeking to be relieved as the attorney for the personal representative, prudence dictates that notice be given to all interested parties.

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

CV-25-002053 – MILLER vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees for Time Actually Expended and Reasonably Incurred – CONTINUED to November 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 23.

The Court previously continued this matter from August 14, 2026, and ordered the parties to meet and confer in person or by online video conference regarding the fee dispute. The Court further ordered the parties to file a Joint Status Statement by October 2, 2026, describing their meet-and-confer efforts and any resolution or narrowing of the issues.

The Court has reviewed the file and does not find a Joint Status Statement complying with the Court's August 14, 2026 order. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether the parties have fully complied with the Court's directives or whether additional efforts have been made to narrow the issues presented by the motion.

Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees is CONTINUED to November 5, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The parties are ordered to comply with the Court's prior meet-and-confer directive if they have not already done so. No later than October 29, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint Status Statement describing:

        1. The date(s) and manner of the meet-and-confer efforts;

        2. The specific attorney-fee and cost issues that remain disputed;

        3. Any issues that have been resolved or narrowed; and

        4. The parties' respective positions regarding the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the matter being continued again, taken off calendar, or decided based upon the record before the Court.

The Court strongly encourages counsel to make further good-faith efforts to resolve or narrow the attorney-fee dispute without further expenditure of judicial resources.

CV-26-001860 – SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC – a) Defendant Bruce Harringtion’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant Bruce Harrington’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint- HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant 50 Fathom Curve, LLC's Demurrer to Amended Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED. d) Defendant Hartley Patterson, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action - HEARING REQUIRED.

a-d) HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel is ordered to appear in person to present Oral argument.

CV-26-003187 – JONES vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – DROPPED.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Notice of Order Granting Third Petition for Coordination filed September 17, 2026. Pursuant to the order, further proceedings in this action are automatically stayed under California Rules of Court, rule 3.529(b). Because this action is stayed, the Court declines to reach the merits of the demurrer at this time. The hearing on Defendant Ford Motor Company's demurrer to the sixth cause of action in the Amended Complaint is accordingly DROPPED without prejudice to re-noticing the demurrer following any termination or modification of the coordination stay.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department 24:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

The following is the tentative ruling 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 for Department 19***