Civil Tentative Rulings

March 12, 2026

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

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

PR-23-000289 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - Petitioner Anna Cabral's Motion for Coordination of Trials of Related Actions - DENIED.

Coordination Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1 Is Not Authorized

The moving party seeks coordination of related probate and civil matters pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1.

Code of Civil Procedure § 404 et seq. authorizes coordination only when civil actions “sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404, subd. (a), italics added.) The coordination statutes are directed at multi‑court litigation—most commonly actions pending in superior courts of different counties—and contemplate Judicial Council involvement and assignment of a coordination judge.

California law is settled that there is only one superior court per county, regardless of the number of departments or subject‑matter divisions. (See People v. Cardona (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 516, 527.) Cases pending in different departments of the same superior court are not “pending in different courts” for purposes of § 404.

Here, the probate proceeding (Case No. PR‑23‑000289) and the related civil action (Case No. CV‑25‑003485) are both pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. Although they are assigned different case types and may be overseen in different departments, the statutory prerequisite for coordination is not met. Accordingly, coordination under Code of Civil Procedure § 404.1 is not available as a matter of law.

The Probate Proceeding Is Already Exercising Ongoing Jurisdiction Over Trust Administration

The record reflects that the probate court is presently exercising continuing jurisdiction over the administration of the Machado Family Trust, including petitions to confirm trust property, compel or approve accountings, settle the trustee’s first and final account, determine beneficiary rights, and resolve objections arising under the Probate Code. (See Prob. Code, §§ 17000, 17200.)

The related civil action asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and interference with expected inheritance, arising from the same alleged trust administration conduct that is already at issue in the probate proceeding. The overlap between the proceedings does not create a basis for statutory coordination; rather, it reflects the probate court’s central role in determining issues concerning trust administration, asset allocation, and trustee conduct.

The coordination statutes are not intended to displace or restructure the probate court’s statutory authority over trust administration, nor to manage overlap between probate and civil matters pending within the same county.

The Motion Does Not Properly Seek Consolidation Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a)

Although the notice of motion cites Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) and rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court, the motion does not, in substance, request consolidation for hearing or trial within the meaning of § 1048.

Consolidation under § 1048 is discretionary and requires a showing that actions involving common questions of law or fact should be tried or heard together in a manner that promotes efficiency and avoids prejudice. A proper consolidation request ordinarily specifies the scope of consolidation (e.g., for trial, for pretrial purposes only, or for all purposes) and addresses the procedural posture of the cases to be joined.

Here, the motion’s substantive arguments focus on coordination‑style concerns—unified handling, avoidance of inconsistent rulings, and centralized oversight—rather than on consolidation for hearing or trial. The motion does not develop the legal or factual analysis required for consolidation under § 1048, nor does it address the procedural incompatibilities between an ongoing probate trust administration and a civil damages action governed by different statutory schemes.

Under these circumstances, the Court does not treat the references to § 1048(a) and rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court, by themselves, as a properly presented request for consolidation.

Discretionary Consolidation or Transfer Is Not Warranted on the Present Record

Even if the Court were to consider discretionary consolidation or transfer, the present record does not support such relief.

The probate proceeding and the civil action are procedurally and substantively distinct. The probate matter involves equitable proceedings governed by the Probate Code and subject to the Court’s continuing supervision of trust administration. The civil action seeks legal remedies, including damages, and proceeds under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consolidation would risk confusing distinct procedural frameworks, complicating trust administration, and prejudice the orderly resolution of the matters.

Moreover, the probate court’s ongoing jurisdiction provides an adequate mechanism for addressing trust‑administration issues, and any interaction between probate rulings and civil claims can be addressed through established doctrines governing sequencing, stays, and issue preclusion, rather than through consolidation or transfer.

Finally, no properly noticed and fully briefed motion seeking consolidation under § 1048 or transfer pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority is before the Court. It would be inappropriate to order such relief sua sponte.

Conclusion

Because coordination under Code of Civil Procedure § 404.1 is not authorized where all matters are pending in the same superior court, and because consolidation or transfer is neither properly requested nor warranted on the present record, the motion is DENIED.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-25-002168 - BANKSON, PATRICIA vs GUERRO, PATRICK, MD – a) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., Dba Emanuel Medical Center's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. b) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., Dba Emanuel Medical Center's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint – DENIED, as MOOT.

a)            With regard to the 2^nd and 3^rd Causes of Action for Fraudulent Deceit and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, respectively, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint again fails to state sufficient facts constituting these claims.  (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e).)   

With regard to the 2^nd Cause of Action, the pleading again lacks the degree of factual specificity required to support a fraud claim. With regard to the 3^rd Cause of Action, the pleading again fails to allege factual support for Plaintiff’s conclusory claims of Defendant’s outrageous conduct and that she suffered severe emotional distress as a result.

The Court questions whether Plaintiff is able to allege sufficient factual support for the subject claims. However, the Court will grant further leave to amend to allow Plaintiff another opportunity to attempt to do so. Plaintiff shall file her amended pleading within 20 days.

b)            The Motion to Strike is MOOT, in view of the Court’s ruling on the Demurrer, above

CV-25-004427 - DHILLON, VIJAYPAL SINGH vs STATE BANK OF TEXAS- Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified Complaint – DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the claims at issue herein arise from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. (See, e.g. Garretson v. Post (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1508.)

CV-25-008062 - MPLI CAPITAL HOLDINGS IV vs MACEDO, CYNTHIA - Plaintiff's Motion for order Deeming Request for Admissions to Defendant Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4^th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $310 are awarded against Defendant Cynthia Macedo, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

CV-25-008224 - SALAS, LADONNA S vs MODESTO MMP VI INC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively Stay Proceedings; Alternatively Request for Statement of Decision – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court notes Defendants’ submission of their Answer to Amended Complaint on 2-20-26, which purports to respond to an amended pleading which adds a PAGA claim to the previously alleged causes of action herein.  However, there appears to be no amended complaint contained within the court’s file. Therefore, counsel shall appear to advise the Court as to whether Plaintiff intends to assert a PAGA claim herein and how that issue impacts the instant motion.

CV-25-008263 - NAVARRETE, ANABELLE vs JM WIRELESS LLC - Defendant JM Wireless LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to May 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

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

CV-24-007633 – HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on Defendant Zen; and Request for Sanction Against Zen and Its Attorney, Jointly and Severally, and to Hold Attorney Kallis in Contempt of Court - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court notes that Defendant’s Zhu has impermissibly failed to comply with the Court’s order of November 14, 2025, granting Plaintiff’s motion in part, and ordering Defendant Zhu to provide responses to Plaintiff's Request for Documents, Set One,  requested in January 2025. Defendant is reminded that disobeying a court order to provide discovery amounts to misuse of the discovery process. (Civ. Proc. Code section 2023.010 ).

Accordingly, Defendant shall provide responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, within seven (7) days from the date of this order.

The Court declines to order the production of physical copies of the requested documents at this time.  Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with electronic copies of the requested documents. If there any issues with the electronic production, Plaintiff shall give Defendant’s Counsel notice of same following which Plaintiff and Defendant’s Counsel shall meet and confer to determine how to make up the deficiencies in production. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees. (Trope v. Katz, (1995)11 Cal. 4th 274). The Court finds that Defendant is not justified in failing to produce said documents to date and accordingly declines to award Defendant attorney fees.  (Civ. Proc. Code section 2031.300)

CV-25-001822 - NAITAMAR, SELMANE vs NAITAMAR, HAJER – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) The Court notes that the discovery at issue was propounded prior to the very recent substitution of Defendant’s current Counsel and Defendant’s current Counsel’s willingness to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel.

As a result, the court hereby orders both Counsel to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s propounded discovery at issue and to file a joint status statement with the court regarding same no later than 5 court days prior to the next court date.

This motion is therefore continued to April 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

b) Based on the recent substitution of Defendant’s new Counsel and the indications in Defendant’s Opposition to this motion, the Court is of the view that meet and confer would be very beneficial in narrowing down the issues in dispute regarding the propounded discovery. ( Code of Civil Procedure 2016.040, Clement v Allegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1294).

The hearing on this motion is accordingly continued to April 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

The parties shall file a joint status statement with the Court no later than five (5) court days prior to said hearing.

CV-25-011144 – LISTMAN, REBECCA LYNN vs DHILLON, SUKBINDER – Defendant Sukbinder Dhillon’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Rebecca Lynn Listman Complaint - OVERRULED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges sufficient facts in ordinary and concise language to state the asserted causes of action and with particularity sufficient to acquaint Defendant with the nature, source and extent of Plaintiff’s cause of action.  (Civ. Proc. Code section 425.10 (a)(2); Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998).

More specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged her negligence and premises liability causes of action. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917; Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1128; Salinas v. Martin, (2008), 166 Cal. App. 4th 404, as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 22, 2008) ; Jones v. Awad, (2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 1200).

The same applies to Plaintiff’s claims of failure to warn. (Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp., (2024), 106 Cal. App. 5th 1026, as modified (Nov. 21, 2024)

Plaintiff’s agency claims are also well pled. (Garton v. Title Ins. & Tr. Co., 106 Cal. App. 3d 365, (1980)).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is overruled. (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.10, subd. (e).)

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***