Civil Tentative Rulings

June 4, 2026

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

CV-21-003139 – SOUZA, ANITA vs BERT, PATRICK J – Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing Settlement Terms – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs assistance on the procedural posture of the case.

CV-25-003485 – ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint- GRANTED; HEARING REQUIRED on attorney fee request.

Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment. The Court has broad discretion in this area and there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

In general, defects in the amended complaint should be addressed through other processes other than denial of leave to amend.

The reply indicates that Plaintiff was willing to make adjustments to the complaint prior to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court wants to discuss that with counsel.

CV-25-008039 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs KATICICH RANCH INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 - DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service is insufficient to establish notice to the corporate defendant, in that it appears the moving papers were not directed to an authorized agent or representative of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10 et seq.) A corporation can have knowledge only through its officers and agents. (See, e.g. Snyder v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 660, 664.)

Further, the Court notes a discrepancy between Defendant’s address as indicated in the Proof of Service of Summons (Walnut Road) and the address indicated for Defendant in Plaintiff’s Proof of Service for the instant motion (Fairchild Road).

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-24-010410 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs CRAWFORD, SHAWN A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication – GRANTED.

Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, the Court finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no defense to the causes of action set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint by producing evidence of each element of the cause of action asserted therein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) The burden then shifts to Defendant to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of material factual disputes preventing judgment. Defendant has failed to carry his burden in that regard, as he has presented no controverting evidence in opposition.  Additionally, while Defendant attempts to invoke the arbitration provisions in the parties’ agreement, the Court finds that Defendant  unreasonably delayed in pursuing arbitration and has waived the right to proceed in that forum under the circumstances.

 

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the principal amount of $22,299.88.

Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant failed to submit his objections in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court is not obligated to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)  

Plaintiff shall submit proposed forms of order and judgment consistent with the Court’s ruling herein.

CV-25-008572 – SYNCHRONY BANK vs DEWEERDT, CAROL – Plaintiff’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court notes a discrepancy between Defendant’s mailing address as indicated in the proof of service for Plaintiff’s for Dismissal, which was submitted on 3-13-26, and that which appears on the notice of default dated 3-6-26 (Exhibit 2 to counsel’s supporting declaration herein) and on the proof of service for the instant motion (dated 4-22-26), as both of the latter appear to have been directed to Morning Law Group in Irvine, California. As the Court cannot determine from the documents on file whether the notice of default and instant motion were properly served, counsel shall appear to address this issue.

CV-25-010863 – SALVEMINI, SUMI vs TRACY RIDGE HEALTHCARE INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Advance the Trial Date- – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court intends to GRANT the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(a).)  Counsel shall appear at the time of the hearing in order to select a mutually agreeable trial date within the parameters specified by Code Civ. Proc. § 36(f).

UD-26-000442 – HARRIS, DEBRA vs TELLER, CHANTEL – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.

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

CV-21-005695 - GHARRAEE, ZAHRA vs TRADER JOES COMPANY – Cross Appellant's, Zahra Gharraee’s Motion to Use Settled Statement on Appeal – DENIED.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to proceed by settled statement under rule 8.137(b)(2) and, in the alternative, for leave to amend APP-003 to reflect an election under rule 8.137(b)(1). Plaintiff asserts that on September 10, 11, 12, and 18, 2025, the jury was presented with videotaped or read deposition testimony of nine nonparty witnesses, that no court reporter was present for those presentations, and that a settled statement is therefore needed to create an appellate record . Plaintiff attributes an incorrect box selection on APP-003 to inadvertence and submits a proposed amended APP-003 as Exhibit 1 to the Moreno Declaration .

Defendant opposes, arguing Plaintiff is attempting to use rule 8.137 to bypass rule 2.1040’s procedure for preserving deposition recordings presented at trial; that rule 8.137 does not authorize importing nearly 250 pages of deposition transcripts in lieu of a condensed narrative; that the request is premature under rule 8.130(h) because the clerk has not issued a notice that any portion of designated proceedings cannot be transcribed; and that the parties dispute what deposition excerpts were actually played or stipulated to. Defendant supports the opposition with declarations from attorneys Hall and Mathis asserting, among other things, that Plaintiff’s April 22, 2026, proposed statement includes transcript portions not in Plaintiff’s designations and that Defendant disputes those portions were shown to the jury . Mathis identifies examples of lines for multiple witnesses that, in her review, were not included in Plaintiff’s written designations and, to her knowledge and recollection, were not played at trial.

Plaintiff replies that rule 2.1040 governs trial procedures for electronic recordings and does not bar use of a settled statement on appeal when the trial record is incomplete; that disagreements about what occurred are precisely what the settled-statement process is designed to resolve; and proposes a timeline to proceed under rule 8.137.

Analysis

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request is procedurally improper.

1. California Rules of Court (discussed in the parties’ papers)

Rule 8.137 permits use of a settled statement as a summary of superior court proceedings, including when (1) the designated oral proceedings were not reported by a court reporter (rule 8.137(b)(1)(A)) or (2) on motion for other reasons (rule 8.137(b)(2)), and describes content and process, including that the statement must be a “condensed narrative of the oral proceedings” and sets deadlines for service, amendments, and settlement (rule 8.137(c)-(e)) .

Rule 8.130(h) addresses circumstances when any portion of designated proceedings cannot be transcribed and prescribes a notice-and-response process initiated by the superior court clerk before the party proceeds to other record mechanisms .

Rule 2.1040 governs electronic recordings of deposition testimony presented or offered into evidence at trial, including requirements to lodge a transcript before presentation, identify page/line numbers on the record, and, within five days of presentation, serve and file marked transcript pages identifying the testimony presented or offered; the Advisory Committee Comment explains how such transcripts may be designated for inclusion in the appellate record.

2. Rule 2.1040 governs trial preservation of deposition recordings; noncompliance does not justify using rule 8.137 to backfill the record.

A settled statement under California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, is intended to provide a condensed narrative of oral proceedings where a reporter’s transcript is unavailable. It is not intended to serve as a mechanism for incorporating or reconstructing substantial portions of deposition transcripts that were not properly made part of the trial record.

Here, Plaintiff seeks, in effect, to introduce extensive deposition transcript excerpts after the fact. The Court finds this approach would improperly circumvent the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.1040, which governs the presentation and preservation of recorded deposition testimony at trial. Defendant contends Plaintiff did not comply with those requirements and that the transcripts were neither identified on the record nor served/ filed, leaving no objective trial-time marker of what was played . Plaintiff does not demonstrate compliance in the present record. While Plaintiff is correct that rule 2.1040 is a trial procedure rule, it is precisely the rule designed to ensure an appellate record of deposition recordings. Noncompliance at trial does not authorize converting rule 8.137 into a surrogate to adopt disputed deposition selections after the fact.

3. Dispute over what was played/read counsels against the requested approach.

Further, the record reflects a material dispute between the parties regarding which portions of deposition testimony were actually presented to the jury. The settled statement procedure is not appropriately used to resolve such disputes through post hoc reconstruction of extensive transcript material. This live dispute, in the absence of rule 2.1040 compliance and without the preliminary rule 8.130(h) process, reinforces why the Court will not certify, via a settled statement, a compilation of deposition transcript pages not objectively anchored in the trial record. The Court does not resolve which excerpts, if any, were actually presented to the jury; that question is not decided here.

4. Alternative request to amend APP-003 10.

 Plaintiff alternatively seeks leave to amend APP-003 to correct an inadvertent selection and appends a proposed amended APP-003 . That request is likewise denied. On this record, amendment would not cure the core procedural defect identified above: Plaintiff’s proposed use of rule 8.137 to import or reconstruct deposition testimony that is governed by rule 2.1040 and is disputed. Any needed corrections or augmentation of the appellate record should proceed through the rules governing the appellate record in the Court of Appeal.

5. Appellate Framework Offers Potential Relief

The Court also notes that alternative procedures exist within the appellate framework, including augmentation of the record or stipulation between the parties, which are better suited to addressing the issues raised.

To the extent the present circumstances arise from a failure to preserve the record at trial, that circumstance does not justify expanding the scope of rule 8.137 beyond its intended purpose.

This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing appropriate relief in the Court of Appeal, including augmentation of the record under California Rules of Court or other procedures permitted by the appellate court.

The parties should utilize the Court of Appeal’s procedures for augmentation or correction of the record, as appropriate, including seeking orders addressing inclusion of any deposition transcript pages that qualify under rule 2.1040 or that the reviewing court otherwise authorizes. This Court does not determine, and expressly declines to determine, what deposition excerpts were played or read to the jury. That issue, if it remains disputed, should be addressed through the appellate record procedures with input from both parties and, if necessary, direction from the reviewing court.

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Use Settled Statement on Appeal is DENIED.

CV-23-001227 –CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT - Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demands for Inspection and for Sanctions - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant’s requested production is relevant to this lawsuit. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010)

Plaintiff’s responsive production to the discovery requests at issue clearly demonstrate gaps or omissions in production as to documents that clearly exist and in respect of which Plaintiff should provide a declaration “detailing the efforts expended to locate the documents which appear to exist, but which have yet to be produced.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., (2009)174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 978; Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539)

To the extent that the omitted documents are not in Plaintiff’s possession custody or control, Plaintiff must state so, and also state whether the inability to comply is “ because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.230).

Furthermore, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s responses whether the omitted documents are those covered by the attorney client privilege or attorney work product privilege.

In light of Plaintiff’s production, Plaintiff’s responses to said discovery are incomplete and or evasive. Defendant’s motion is therefore accordingly granted.

Plaintiff shall therefore provide further Code-Compliant responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production Set Two Numbers 1 and 2 within ten (10) days of the date of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310).

Plaintiff shall also produce a privilege log in respect of Plaintiff’s asserted attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Ct., (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 1116.)

Monetary sanctions of $1,780 are imposed against Plaintiff for Defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310 (h)).

CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO – a) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from the City of Modesto- CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. b) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production from the City of Modesto – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) The Court is not inclined to find Plaintiff’s Motion moot in view of the service of Defendant’s Amended Responses thereto. There appears to be some merit to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the deficiencies with said Amended Responses.

Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or via video to narrow down any issues in dispute remaining with Plaintiff’s said Special Interrogatories following the service of Defendant’s said Amended Responses. Parties are reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing and that 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. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 390; Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

Accordingly, this matter is continued to July 17^th,  2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

Plaintiff shall file a supplementary pleading no later than July 6^th, 2026, identifying discovery requests that remain outstanding. Defendant’s response shall be filed no later than July 10^th 2026.

b) The Court is not inclined to find Plaintiff’s Motion moot in view of the service of Defendant’s Amended Responses thereto. There appears to be some merit to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the deficiencies with said Amended Responses.

Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or via video to narrow down any issues in dispute remaining with Plaintiff’s said Special Interrogatories following the service of Defendant’s said Amended Responses. Parties are reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing and that 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. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 390; Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

Accordingly, this matter is continued to July 17th, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

Plaintiff shall file a supplementary pleading no later than July 6^th, 2026, identifying discovery requests that remain outstanding. Defendant’s response shall be filed no later than July 10^th, 2026.

CV-25-000327 - DOORNEWAARD, JOSEPH vs SCONZA CANDY COMPANY - Defendant Sconza Candy Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Individual Paga Claim to Arbitration and to Stay Paga Representative Action Claim – GRANTED.

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967). 

The Court also finds that Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce. (Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265).

The Court further finds that Plaintiff,  as a member of the class of candy maker employees and based on his job description even if he “often bagged candy and placed it into shipping boxes for transport  and placed refrigerated candy in the box truck for shipping “ “actively” “engaged in transportation’ of ... goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce” , nor did he play a direct and ‘necessary role in the free flow of goods’ across borders.” (Vela v. Harbor Rail Servs. of California, Inc., (2026)120 Cal. App. 5th 353; Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, (2022) 596 U.S. 450 at 458 (quoting Circuit City, Inc v Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105 at 121; Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., (2020) 971 F.3d 904; Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc., (2021) 62 Cal. App. 5th 552; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, (2024) 601 U.S. 2460; Rubio-Leon v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.,( N.D. Cal. 2025)812 F. Supp. 3d 944).

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is not a transportation worker within the contemplation of 9. U.S.C. section 1. Plaintiff’s claims herein are therefore not exempt from arbitration. (Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D.Cal.2020, 460 F.Supp.3d 919, affirmed 7 F.4th 854; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, U.S.2024, 144 S.Ct. 905; Lopez v. Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc., 107 F.4th 1096 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1063, 220 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2025). Therefore, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq is applicable to the parties’ agreement. Additionally, parties may agree to the application of the Federal Arbitration Act. (Tuufuli v. W. Coast Dental Admin. Servs., LLC, (2026)117 Cal. App. 5th 1048).

The Court also finds that said arbitration agreement as a contract of adhesion with a limited review period provided to Plaintiff before signing same exhibits some degree of procedural unconscionability which requires a high degree of substantive unconscionability to render said agreement unenforceable. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111; Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Lim v. TForce Logistics, LLC, (2021) 8 F.4th 992; Ali v. Daylight Transp., LLC, (2020) 59 Cal. App. 5th 462).

The Court notes that as a party is deemed to have read and to understand the contents of a document he appends his signature to. (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC, (2017)13 Cal. App. 5th 1152). Moreover, an employer is not required to explain the terms of an arbitration agreement to an employee.

The Court finds that the arbitration agreement exhibits a modicum of bilaterality as either party may request arbitration. The agreement also meets the minimum requirements of fairness - (1) a neutral arbitrator, (2) more than minimal discovery, (3)  the issuance of a written reasoned decision by the arbitrator (4) does not limit Plaintiff’s remedies, and (5) does not require Plaintiff to pay  costs that would not be paid in litigation.

(Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4^th 83). However, the provision that requires arbitration of disputes beyond those between Plaintiff and Defendant extending to Defendant’s “officers, agents or other employees “ is substantively unconscionable and without justification. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; Cook v. Univ. of S. California, 102 Cal. App. 5th 312, 326–27).

The Court further finds that the parties’ arbitration agreement is not permeated with unconscionability and is therefore enforceable. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; Cook v. Univ. of S. California, 102 Cal. App. 5th 312).

The Court therefore exercises its discretion to sever said offending provision. (Civ Proc Code section § 1670.5 (a); Carlson v. Home Team Pest Def., Inc., (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 619; Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc., (2004)115 Cal. App. 4th 638). Accordingly, said agreement shall only provide for arbitration of disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Therefore, Defendant’s application is hereby granted. Plaintiff’s individual Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claim is hereby ordered to arbitration.  Plaintiff’s representative Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claim is hereby stayed pending the conclusion of said arbitration. (9 U.S.C.A. § 3; Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5^th 1104, Code of Civil Procedure, § 1281.4).

CV-25-008095 -US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs BARKHOY, RAMSIN - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Without Prejudice and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6 - GRANTED.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of December 2025, and Defendant’s failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted. The Court’s dismissal order of December 12, 2025, is hereby set aside and vacated.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $675.70,  paid pursuant to said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $5,591.89. (Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

The following is the tentative rulings for a case 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 in Department 19***