Civil Tentative Rulings

June 16, 2026

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

CV-24-008540 – TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION – Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Requests for Admission - GRANTED.

Plaintiff submitted the instant motion on April 20, 2026. Defendant submitted an opposition on June 3, 2026. Plaintiff submitted a reply on June 9, 2026. Defendant submitted an unauthorized sur-reply on June 11, 2026.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) “The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff Tesoro Homes, Inc. (“Tesoro”) seeks relief from inadvertent wavier of objections to Defendant’s request for admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. Plaintiff served late responses due to a calendaring error. Defendant does not appear to oppose the requested relief but instead argues that any relief should not be construed as a determination that Plaintiff’s responses are complete, code-compliant, or otherwise sufficient.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, the Court GRANTS the motion for relief from waiver of objections. The Court makes no determination on whether the responses are otherwise sufficient.

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

CV-24-006546 – JACKSON, THUY vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED to July 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Plaintiff’s opposition was submitted four court days before the hearing and thus, is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.) Plaintiff’s belated submission deprived Defendant of its full statutory opportunity to submit a reply brief. Despite Plaintiff’s late submission, Defendant submitted a short reply on June 11, 2026. The Court will continue the hearing. Defendant is authorized to file an additional reply brief in accordance with the statutory deadlines.

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to July 23, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

PR-25-000083 – IN THE MATTER OF DONALD LARRY LILLEGARD AND DENISE LOUISE LILLEGARD 2002 TRUST – Trustee/Objector’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order; and for Sanctions Against Petitioner, Brett Lillegard - – GRANTED.

There being no active controversy in this case at this time, it appears to the Court that the subpoena is MOOT. The motion to quash the subpoena is therefore GRANTED.

Monetary sanctions for a motion to quash a subpoena are discretionary (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a)), and the Court declines to award them here. The Court notes that the Moving Party should have filed a separate statement as required by rule 3.1345(a)(5) of the California Rules of Court.

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

CV-20-004893 – ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC vs GUNNEAR, PETER E – Defendant’s Motion for Order Setting Aside and Vacating its Prior Order of Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court notes that counsel’s declaration in support of the motion contains an invalid date (12-11-2026). Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5 requires that a declaration indicate the date of execution; failure to comply with this requirement renders the subject declaration inadmissible. (See, e.g. Arguelles-Romero v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 825, 833.) Therefore, counsel shall appear to address the issue and may be allowed to present a properly executed declaration in support of the motion herein at the time of the hearing.

CV-23-004326 – WIGGINS, JOSHUA vs COLEMAN, TIMOTHY – a) Defendant’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own Motion, to July 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Angelo Gonzalez and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff’s Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own Motion, to July 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23

a-b) The Court notes that these matters seek relief, in part, under Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420 but fail to demonstrate the meet and confer efforts required therein prior to seeking judicial intervention. Moreover, while Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1 does not include a similar requirement, the Court nevertheless believes that the potential exists for this dispute to be narrowed or resolved informally if the parties made genuine efforts in good faith as required by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.420 and 2016.040 et seq. Therefore, the hearings are CONTINUED for this purpose, as above.

Counsel are instructed to meet and confer in person or via telephone with regard to the issues presented herein and to file a Joint Status Statement demonstrating such efforts and briefly setting forth their positions on the specific issues remaining in dispute, if any, no later than July 1, 2026.

CV-23-002171 – MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL JR – Defendant Truc Thahn Ly, El & El Wood Products Corp, and Metrie El & El LLCs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court requires more time to review this matter.

CV-24-005034 – DIAMOND, KAREN vs AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC – Defendant Americold Logistics, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication – SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.

Defendant, as the moving party, has demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment in its favor herein, based on the undisputed evidence demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ decedent was employed by Defendant’s contractor and was injured while working at Defendant’s site. (See UMFs 1, 3, 4; Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 643-644.) Therefore, defendant owed no duty to decedent in this context under California law, pursuant to Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4^th 689 and its progeny.

The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of material factual disputes defeating the application of the Privette doctrine. Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden herein. As a result, Defendant is entitled to judgment on the Complaint and the Complaint-in-Intervention.

The Court rules on the parties’ objections to evidence as follows: Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant’s evidence are SUSTAINED, in part, on the grounds asserted, as follows: #3, in part, with regard to the assertion that Americold “had no ability to control and did not control” how Raymond employees performed work; #4; #5, in part, with regard to the assertion about where Raymond employees “were permitted” to work. The remaining objections are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence are SUSTAINED on the grounds asserted. In addition, Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

CV-26-003769 – GENESIS FAMILY ENTERPRISES INC vs GERRARD, FRANK, WALTER – Petitioner’s Petition for Judicial Declaration of Abandonment - DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service of the instant petition fails to demonstrate compliance with the service requirements of Civ. Code § 798.61(c).  In addition, the address contained on the proof of service for Respondents Gerrard and Wilhelm appears to be incomplete, as no space number is indicated.

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

CV-22-000411 – PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER – Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s failure to comply on two occasions with the Court’s order requiring service on his client at the client’s last known address, this motion is now hereby denied without prejudice.

CV-23-006729 – LUSBY, KARI vs YOUNG, CARTER – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Seven, to Kari Lusby – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Six, to Kari Lusby – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court is of the view that the parties will benefit from further good faith meet and confer in view of Plaintiff’s Amended Responses, Defendant’s recent submission of a “Consent for Release of Information”  to Plaintiff as well as Plaintiff’s asserted privacy concerns.

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer in good faith “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040).

The parties are also reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, 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. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

This matter is therefore continued to 30^th June 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than June 24th, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.

b) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court is of the view that the parties will benefit from further good faith meet and confer in view of Plaintiff’s Amended Responses, Defendant’s recent submission of a “Consent for Release of Information”  to Plaintiff as well as Plaintiff’s asserted privacy concerns.

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer in good faith “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040).

The parties are also reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, 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. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

This matter is therefore continued to 30^th June 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

No later than June 24, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication

CV-24-009962 – THE AGRI GROUP INC vs LEAVITT, BURNS D – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – GRANTED.

The Court finds, to the extent that service of the motion papers herein was by mail, service was complete when the motion papers were deposited in the mail on February 4, 2026, per Defendant’s proof of service filed with the Court.  The present motion is therefore considered made on February 4, 2026, four days prior to the 2/8/26 6-month deadline and is therefore timely. (Stasz v. Eisenberg, (2010)190 Cal.App.4th 1032).

The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion provides grounds for the grant of the requested relief based on Defendant’s mistake or excusable neglect and is supported by Defendant’s Proposed Answer.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (b); Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016), 244 Cal.App.4th 918, on remand 2016 WL 6902896; N.G. v. Cnty. of San Diego, (2020) 59 Cal. App. 5th 63; Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 13; Maynard v. Brandon, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 364).

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is hereby granted. Defendant’s default entered herein on August 8,2025 is hereby vacated and set aside.

The Court notes Default Judgment has not been granted so there is no default judgment to be set aside.

Defendant shall file his Answer to the Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

As to Plaintiff’s issue with the failure to include the information regarding tentative rulings in his notice of motion, the cited statutory provision does not specifically require parties that information to be included in the notice of motion, though it appears to be the practice to do so. Therefore, the alleged omission is not grounds to deny the motion. In any case, Plaintiff is apparently aware of the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and is not prejudiced by said omission.

CV-25-009889 – GARCIA, JOSE ALBERTO ROSALES vs FANT, LILLIAN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet,  Notice of Case Management Conference and Fee Waiver Request, were submitted for filing with the Stanislaus County Superior Court on October 6, 2025 during business hours and therefore, filed on that date, notwithstanding their later rejection on October 9, 2025 for Plaintiff’s failure to sign the fee waiver request himself.  (United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918; Carlson v. State of California Dep't of Fish & Game, (1998) 68 Cal. App. 5th 1268; Litzmann v. Workmen's Comp.App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 2030.

Therefore, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiff’s said Complaint, Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Notice of Case Management Conference and Fee Waiver Request are deemed timely filed on October 6, 2025.

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***