Civil Tentative Rulings

June 3, 2026

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***

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-23-005517 – ASSYRIAN AMERICAN CIVIC CLUB EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION vs TURLOCK ADULT DAY CARE HEALTH CENTER INC – Cross-Defendant’s Demurrer – SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend and in part, without leave to amend.

The Court finds that the First Amended Cross-Complaint fails to allege sufficient factual support for each of the stated claims against the moving Cross-Defendant herein, in that the pleading fails to allege specific conduct constituting Mr. Pourtaverdi’s personal involvement in the purported wrongful conduct. 

Additionally, he Court finds that the 4^th Cause of Action for Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage fails to sufficiently identify the requisite legal duty owed by Mr. Pourtaverdi to Cross-Complainant under the alleged circumstances.

With regard to the Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action, for Unfair Business Practices and Trespass to Chattels, respectively, the Court notes that Cross-Complainant concedes the insufficiency of the pleading of these claims but asserts that additional facts may be alleged to support the same in an amended pleading.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Causes of Action. Cross-Complainant shall submit the Second Amended Cross-Complaint within 20 days.

Lastly, with regard to the Sixth Cause of Action for Conspiracy, the Court notes Cross-Complainant’s agreement to withdraw this claim. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, only as to that cause of action.

CV-25-005785 - MARDIKIAN, GEORGE vs THE SWEET ORGANIZATION INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses - GRANTED, in part, with leave to amend; DENIED, in part.

The Court exercises its discretion to decline to strike the Answer as untimely filed. (See, e.g., Imagistics International, Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4^th 581, 588.)

However, the Court finds that Defendants’ 2^nd through 12^th affirmative defenses consist only of bare assertions without sufficient factual support for the new matter sought to be added thereby.  (See, e.g. Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294; FPI Development., Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)  Therefore, the motion is granted as to the 2^nd – 12^th defenses.  The Court grants leave to amend in this regard.

With regard to Defendant’s first affirmative defense, the Court finds that no new matter is asserted thereby; rather, the subject “defense” challenges the viability of Plaintiff’s claims and operates as a traverse rather than a true affirmative defense. As such, the matter is not required to be alleged in the answer, but the Court cannot conclude that the assertions made therein are irrelevant or improper in this context. Therefore, the motion is denied as to the 1^st defense.

Defendants shall submit their amended answer within 20 days.

CV-25-005797 - MEDINA, FABIAN ESTRELLA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses – GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $17.945.85.

The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5^th 462.)

Attorney’s Fees

Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court’s experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs’ counsel herein should be reduced as follows:

.40 hours claimed by Mr. Beck on 4-27-26 in connection with an ex parte application, as that document does not appear in the court’s file.

4.2 hours claimed by Ms. Delos Santos for non-compensable clerical tasks and/or duplicative tasks (including a portion of the time claimed as post-filing billing reflected in the reply)

Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community.  (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the  community where the action is pending. (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.)  Lastly, the law provides that the trial judge is “the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49.) As a result, the Court finds that Mr. Beck’s requested rates are not reflective of the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County and should be reduced.

Therefore, the hourly rate for Mr. Beck is approved in the reduced amount of $450.  The hourly rate for Ms. Delos Santos is approved in the requested amount of $150.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the memorandum of costs filed on 2-20-26, in the amount of $2,225.85. Defendant’s objections to the claimed costs were previously rejected by the Court in connection with the defense’s motion to tax costs.

Summary of Award –

 

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
Beck	31.2	450	$    14,040.00
Delos Santos	11.2	150	1,680.00
		Total Fees	$15,720.00
		Costs	2,225.85
		AWARD	$ 17,945.85

CV-26-000588 - HINCHMAN, JOHN LEWIS vs REINS, TERRY – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service demonstrates insufficient notice of the instant motion.(Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

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 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes no indication in the Court files that Plaintiff’s Counsel has taken steps to serve the client at his last known address, as required by the Court.

Accordingly, this matter is continued to Tuesday, June 16 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for Plaintiff’s Counsel to discharge that obligation.

CV-24-001479 - CARRANZA, RAFAELA CERVANTES vs VOLK ENTERPRISES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court the Court finds as follows:

The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

7-6-26	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
9-1- 26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
11-6-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
11-13-26	Deadline for submission of  due diligence declaration from Administrator.
11-19-26	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for December 11, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to the Court’s ruling within five court days.

CV-24-002535 - QURESHI, FAYYAZ vs DE LA ROSA, MARIA – Defendant’s Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement – VACATED, at Defendant’s request.

CV-25-007430 – CAPITAL ONE NA vs DEICHMAN, ROBERT –- Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Dismiss Action Without Prejudice – GRANTED, unopposed.

Due to the automatic stay imposed by Defendant’s bankruptcy filing of January 19, 2026, ( Case No. 10178) unbeknownst to this Court, this Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to issue and enter judgment in this matter on January 22, 2026. (11 U.S. Code §362; Burton v. Infinity Cap. Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2017; In re LPM Corp., 269 B.R. 217 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001), aff'd, 300 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2002)

Said judgment is therefore void and subject to being set aside on that basis.( Civ. Proc. Code § 473 (d); Biggs v. Biggs 1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 741).

Accordingly, the judgment entered by the Court on January 22, 2026, is hereby vacated and set aside.

At Plaintiff’s request, this matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms with the Court’s ruling within five court days.

CV-26-002293 - NENEF, DANIEL vs NARAYAN, SHAREENA DEVI – Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes the absence of Code Compliant meet and confer despite attempts by Defendant’s Counsel. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41)

The Court therefore continues this matter to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for the required meet and confer to take place.

Both parties shall file declarations reporting on said meet and confer no later than the close of business on June 17, 2026.

The following is the tentative ruling 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***