Civil Tentative Rulings

Amended October 08, 2026

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-26-002847 - SOTO, JENNIFER SARAHI vs GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is likely to grant the order, but has some clarifying questions for future handling of the matter.

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

CV-23-001140 - CONTRERAS, MARIA vs ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME STORE - Defendant's Motion for Protective Order re: Notice of Taking "Person Most Knowledgeable" Deposition Produce and Inspection of Documents on GBS Warrant and Motion for Sanctions - GRANTED.

While not emphasized in the moving papers, the Court notes a foundational deficiency in the subject deposition notice, which was not served in compliance with the notice requirements set forth in CCP §§ 2025.270 and 1010.6 (regarding electronic service).

In addition, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the requested protective order vacating the subject deposition notice on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot compel a non-resident witness to submit to a deposition proceeding in California. (See, e.g. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107.)

The Court also finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(h).) Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $800, payable to defense counsel.

The Court’s ruling herein is made without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to proceed with the subject deposition(s) in the future, on proper notice and in compliance with all applicable legal requirements. In addition, counsel are encouraged to explore the potential for acceptable alternatives in good faith and with due civility to one another.

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum fails to comply with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(d), (f) herein, and the Court has exercised its discretion to disregard the unapproved pages beyond the 15-page limit provided in the Rule. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(g).)  Counsel is cautioned to observe the applicable requirements in connection with all future filings.

PR-26-000073 - IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s September 23, 2026 status report, Respondent’s October 1, 2026 response, and Petitioner's October 5, 2026 supplemental filing. Respondent represents in her response that verified supplemental responses to the remaining discovery requests were served on September 23, 2026. But Petitioner replies that she has no record of receiving those responses and first learned of Respondent's claim when she received Respondent's October 1, 2026 filing on October 5, 2026. The supplemental responses themselves have not been provided to the Court.

Under these circumstances, the Court is unable to determine whether the disputes identified in Petitioner's September 23, 2026 Status Report have been resolved, narrowed, or remain outstanding. The Court therefore concludes that a brief continuance is appropriate.

Accordingly:

        1. The motions are CONTINUED to October 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

        2. Respondent shall re-serve the supplemental responses allegedly served on September 23, 2026, together with any proof of service, no later than Tuesday, October 13, 2026.

        3. Petitioner may file and serve a supplemental status report no later than October 20, 2026.

        4. If Petitioner contends any response remains defective, the supplemental status report shall identify each disputed discovery request separately and shall set forth verbatim:

                 a. the discovery request at issue; and

                 b. all responses Respondent has provided to that request, including any supplemental responses.

        5. Respondent may file and serve a response to Petitioner's supplemental status report no later than October 23, 2026.

The Court reserves ruling on the merits of the remaining discovery disputes pending review of the supplemental responses and the parties' additional submissions.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 23***

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

CV-24-005272 - BROWN, CODY vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment - DENIED.

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s late filed Reply. (Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186). The Court notes that consideration of the Reply does not alter the disposition of the motion.

Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835 arising from an October 17, 2023, scooter accident at South Rose Street and Alfreda Street.

After a review of all the testimony and evidence adduced, the Court finds the City has not established that the alleged condition was trivial as a matter of law. Plaintiff did not measure the pothole and expressly testified that he did not know its depth. (Plaintiff’s Exh. A, p. 124; Defendant’s UMF 8-9; P’s AMF 49-50). Although Defendant argues that Plaintiff's testimony supports an inference that the pothole was approximately one inch deep, that figure is an inference rather than an actual measurement. The Court therefore does not determine that the roadway was dangerous or that the City had constructive notice as a matter of law. It determines only that those issues cannot be resolved against Plaintiff on summary judgment. Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559.

Moreover, the evidence concerning multiple pavement defects and their effect upon two-wheeled vehicles creates a triable issue as to whether the roadway presented a substantial risk of injury. (Rosescu Declaration).

There is also a triable issue as to constructive notice. The City's records show that approximately six and one-half months before the accident, City employees repaired seven potholes at the subject intersection using cold asphalt. (Plaintiff’s Additional Material Fact 25, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, Defendant’s SSUMF 17)

Plaintiff submitted evidence that cold mix was a temporary repair, (Plaintiff’’s AMF 18 and 30; P’s Exhibit E, Gragg Depo p.22; Padilla Depo Exhibit B), that permanent repair was contemplated, and that City crews affirmatively surveyed streets, inspected surrounding areas for additional defects, and returned to previously repaired locations. The record also reflects prior pothole repairs in the same area. (Defendant’s SSUMFs 12-18; Plaintiff’s AMF 13-15)

Although Plaintiff has not established that any pothole previously repaired was the precise pothole involved in his accident, the foregoing evidence permits a reasonable inference that the accident occurred amid recurring pavement deterioration at a location the City had previously inspected and repaired. Whether the City should have discovered and remedied the condition therefore presents a factual question.

Plaintiff has not established the precise dimensions of the pothole involved in his accident, and Plaintiff's expert's December 2025 measurements do not establish the dimensions of the particular pothole involved in the October 2023 accident. Nevertheless, that deficiency does not eliminate the independent evidence creating a triable issue concerning constructive notice. The evidence, viewed most favorably to Plaintiff, presents triable issues concerning whether the roadway constituted a dangerous condition and whether the City had constructive notice sufficiently before the accident to take protective measures. Gov. Code, §§ 830,830.2 and 835; Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559; Restivo v. City of Petaluma (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 267; Sargenti v. City of Long Beach (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 702 reh'g denied (June 3, 2026), review denied (Aug. 19, 2026). 

Similarly, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the City's inspection and maintenance response was reasonable under Government Code section 835.4. Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.(c); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.

Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment is therefore denied.

CV-24-008722 - DELGADO, GLORIA vs FCA US LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses, Pursuant to Civil Code 1794(d) - GRANTED, in part, denied in part.

Plaintiff is the prevailing party pursuant to Defendant’s acceptance of Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 offer, which provides that Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d) would be determined by noticed motion. Entitlement is therefore not disputed. The issue is the reasonable amount to be awarded.

Plaintiff seeks attorney fees of $65,886.50 a multiplier of multiplier of 1.5 or 2 for total fees of $98,829.75 and $131,773.00 respectively, and costs of $2,337.87.

Under Civil Code § 1794(d), the prevailing buyer may recover attorney fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of the action. The Court must determine whether the hours claimed were actually and reasonably incurred and whether the amount charged is reasonable under all of the circumstances (Civ. Code § 1794(d); Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5^th 682; Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785 ; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104; Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5^th 493, review denied; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., (2009)174 Cal.App.4th 967; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807; Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 792, 821).

Defendant seeks substantial reductions based on repeated use of substantially similar discovery, duplication, pre-litigation work, administrative tasks, and fee motion work, The Court does not adopt Defendant’s requested reduction in full. However, certain targeted reductions are warranted.

Defendant’s objections concerning similar discovery have partial merit. The Court recognizes that experienced Song-Beverly counsel may permissibly use templates to litigate recurring issues efficiently. However, template use also supports the finding that certain claimed hours were excessive where the work required limited customization. Overall, considering Plaintiff’s Counsels’ experience in lemon law litigation, the use of substantially similar discovery, though tailored to the specifics of this case for efficiency and to save on litigation costs, instances of duplicative work, block billing and charges for clerical work balanced against Defendant’s posture in this case - failure to promptly repurchase or replace Plaintiff’s vehicle which resulted in this litigation, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to adjusted fee award of $49,373.50 in attorney fees reasonably incurred and based on actual time expended. Accounting for these issues, the total fee reduction amounts to $16,513.00.

The request for a multiplier is denied. Although Plaintiff obtained a favorable result and counsel accepted the matter on a contingent basis, this case did not involve unusually novel or complex issues, did not proceed to trial, and the lodestar adequately compensates counsel for the work reasonably performed. The Court notes that the rates claimed are Southern California rates and the orders submitted by Counsel in support of said rates all involve Southern California Courts. However, the Court recognizes that the preponderance of Song Beverly attorneys are located in Southern California and awards the requested rates. Tridrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359).

As to costs, Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s claimed costs of $2,337.87. The Court finds these costs reasonably connected to the litigation. Allowed costs are therefore $2,337.87

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is therefore GRANTED IN PART as follows:

Attorney Fees: $49,373.50 

Costs: $2,337.87

Total Award: $51,711.37 

The request for a multiplier is denied.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order no later than October 15, 2026.

CV-26-001367 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs SANCHEZ, MARITZA G - Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions as Admitted - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant on May 5, 2026, without substantial justification.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a). Furthermore, said Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted for all purposes including trial.    Civ Proc. Code §§.2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762.

CV-26-003854 - CARRANZA JR, JAIME vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT - Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint - GRANTED, unopposed.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca. App. 3d 311; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4^th 968.

The Court finds that the present case has the same parties as Case No. 2028120, the same cause of action for defamation is asserted in both cases, and the Court in Case No. 2028120 issued a final decision on the merits on January 3, 2029, sustaining Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint without leave to amend and further dismissing said complaint with prejudice.  Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Dep't of Conservation, (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 1202; Grande v. Eisenhower Med. Ctr., (2022)13 Cal. 5th 313. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a cause of action on grounds of res judicata is hereby sustained, without leave to amend. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice. Evidence Code section 452(d).

The following are the tentative ruling for cases 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***