Civil Tentative Rulings

August 18, 2026

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

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

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

CV-26-004817 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs SANDOVAL, KENNETH - Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - DENIED without prejudice.

On July 14, 2026, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant in the principal sum of $4992.16 plus costs. There is no opposition on file.

The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, which requires that parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439 was the delivery of a written communication on June 22, 2026, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Robert S. Cox, ¶¶ 3–4.)

A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s memorandum argues that Defendant admitted all allegations in the complaint but instead, it appears Defendant’s answer filed May 29, 2026, states the following: “Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny allegations 1–14 and therefore denies them.” (Answer, 1.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

PR-21-001242 - IN THE MATTER OF MAXWELL HEINZLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST - Trustee’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court GRANTS the unopposed motion by Attorney Ronald W. Hillberg to be relieved as counsel for Trustee Roxanne Heinzle, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client.

Moving Counsel is to submit a new proposed order within five court days that reflects the current events set for October 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. In addition, Moving Counsel is to file and serve a notice of ruling within five court days on Western Surety Company pursuant to the Request for Special Notice that was filed on July 23, 2026.

PR-23-000289 - In the Matter of the MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - a) Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Petitioner, Angela Estacio and Her Counsel of Record, Rebecca H. Sem - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

a) Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions

The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence, filing, and contents of the court records identified in the request pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 453. The Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any factual matters asserted therein.

The motion for consolidation of trials of related actions is GRANTED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that creditors’ claims typically belong in civil court and usually should be kept discrete from a probate case. However, in this particular case, the “creditor” is a beneficiary of the trust. And despite her first amended complaint having been pleaded as a civil damages action, the gravamen of her civil case remains a dispute over trust administration, trust asset allocation, trustee conduct, and beneficiary rights under the Machado Trusts. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the factual allegations concern matters traditionally within the probate court's trust jurisdiction and could have been litigated through trust petitions and objections in the pending probate proceeding. As such, this is the rare instance where it does make sense for the Court to try both the trust petitions and civil matters together.  

Accordingly, the Court finds that Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. PR-23-000289 and Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-25-003485 involve common questions of law and fact within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a). Both matters arise from the administration of the Machado Family 2001 Survivor's Trust and Machado Family 2001 Credit Bypass Trust, involve substantially overlapping parties, witnesses, and documentary evidence, and present overlapping factual disputes.

The Court further finds that consolidation for purposes of trial will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and testimony, reduce litigation expense, and minimize the potential for inconsistent factual findings.

The Court is not persuaded that the differences between the probate and civil proceedings warrant separate trials. Any concerns regarding differing remedies, procedural issues, or potential jury-trial rights can be addressed through appropriate case-management orders and trial sequencing.

Accordingly, the trials of Case No. PR-23-000289 and Case No. CV-25-003485 are consolidated for purposes of trial. The parties shall appear at the next case management conference or other date set by the court to discuss assignment of a trial department, sequencing of issues, and related scheduling matters.

b) Motion to Quash Subpoena

The Court finds that the subpoena, as drafted, is facially overbroad. The subpoena seeks "any and all records" relating to numerous individuals and trust entities and contains no temporal limitation. The absence of any time restriction potentially subjects approximately twenty-five years of records to production and renders the subpoena unreasonable in scope.

However, the Court also finds that petitioner has demonstrated that records maintained by Mid Valley Agricultural Services may have relevance to disputed issues concerning trust administration and the accounting, particularly in light of prior discovery responses indicating that some responsive vendor records may have been lost or destroyed.

Accordingly, the Court declines to quash the subpoena in its entirety. Instead, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the subpoena is MODIFIED as follows:

        1. Production shall be limited to records relating to trust property and trust expenditures from January 1, 2017, through the present.

        2. Production shall be limited to records concerning agricultural purchases, agricultural inputs, invoices, statements, account records, payment records, and related business records associated with trust property.

Given that the Court agrees this matter could have been resolved with further meet and confer efforts, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

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

CV-24-000752 - LOPEZ, JUANITA vs COVANTA PROJECTS LLC - Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement - DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement submitted by Class Counsel does not appear to be signed by a representative of the defendants or by defense counsel. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that a binding agreement was reached.

Moreover, the Court notes that Class Counsel’s supporting declaration does not contain a discussion of the factors bearing on the valuation of the claim as compared to the settlement as required by the law. While that discussion is reflected in the supporting memorandum, Counsel’s declaration is the only admissible evidence in support of the motion and should reflect the required discussion therein.

Lastly, the Court has concerns with regard to the language included in the settlement agreement regarding the scope of claims released by the class.  Specifically, the Court questions the broad inclusion of any and all potential claims that “could have been” asserted in the action and whether the scope of the release is sufficiently tethered to the facts at issue in this action to prevent the class members’ unintended release of unrelated and/or unforeseen claims.  Consequently, the Court instructs counsel to confer with the goal of addressing this issue, potentially by amendment to clarify the language, and to present the Court with additional information in this regard upon resubmission of the instant motion. The parties are strongly cautioned that the Court will be reluctant to approve the settlement if this issue is not satisfactorily addressed.

CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [CCP 473(A)(1), 576; CRC 3.1324] - DENIED.

While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.)  Specifically, the necessity of amendment appears to rest on discovery responses which do not provide factual support for the proposed claim against Sutter Health herein. Therefore, the Court finds that granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the legal theory Plaintiff seeks to allege against Sutter Health lacks merit. (See, e.g. (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 652.)

Additionally, the record reveals Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in conducting discovery with regard to potential claims against Sutter Health and her unreasonable delay in bringing the subject motion. More significantly, the Court finds that the above factors, combined with Plaintiff’s concession in repeated amended pleadings that Sutter Health was improperly named, misled Defendant with regard to Plaintiff’s intentions in the case and the need to mount a defense thereto, resulting in prejudice to Defendant which further supports the denial of the motion.

CV-25-002020 - SALAS, OSCAR vs HINOJOSA, VIVIANA - Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED.

The effectiveness of the order shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is submitted. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)  In addition, the proposed order should be corrected to accurately reflect the future Case Management Conference set on 9-14-26.

Counsel shall submit a revised order in compliance with this ruling.

CV-25-002490 - ROMERO , ROGER vs SCROGGINS, JAMES EDWARD, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 - DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion is not proper under Code Civ. Proc. § 663, as it fails to seek entry of a “new and different judgment,” as envisioned by that statute, and instead seeks to vacate the entry of judgment and return the case for trial. (See, e.g. Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203-203.) Moreover, while the law permits the Court to treat the motion as one for new trial pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 657, Plaintiff has nevertheless failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief under that section.

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

CV-23-004868 - VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUE vs SOTO, LUIS - Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff’s motion.

At Plaintiffs’ request and based on the continued implementation of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, this matter is continued to February 19th, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-008594 - DISCOVER BANK vs SHAMA, JASMINE P - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of November 26, 2024, 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 as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1,280.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees of $408.73, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,986.25. Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299.

CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions - GRANTED.

Without any knowledge of information as to the service of supplementary responses by Defendant as agreed upon with Plaintiff per the parties’ Joint Status Statement, the Court will address the motion in its entirety.

Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2017.010. Furthermore, in the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531).

Requests for Production that relate to Plaintiff’s specific vehicle are clearly relevant and discoverable. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.

The court previously noted Defendant’s reliance on California Assembly Bill No. 1755, Code of Civ. Proc § 871.26(h)(1) – (17) and notes again that this list refers to “initial disclosures”: it is not an exhaustive list and does not preempt statutory discovery.

Additionally, Code of Civ. Proc § 871.26(h), (9) and (10), provide for the disclosure of:

 (9) Published technical service bulletins (”TSBs”)¹ for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle, and

(10) Published information service bulletins (“ISBs”) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (Emphasis added).

Information regarding other vehicles of the same make, model but of different years was held relevant and discoverable in Doppes v Bentley Motors. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 4th 967. (See also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, as modified on denial of reh'g (July 8, 2013). This information is relevant to establish Defendant’s knowledge of the defects at issue for purposes of demonstrating willfulness for the imposition of civil penalties, if available. Civ.Code § 1794.

Defendant’s policies and practices for addressing and evaluating repurchase requests by its customers are also relevant and discoverable for the same reasons.

The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond to discovery remains at all times with the party resisting same. Williams, v Superior Court (2017) 3 cal.5^th 531). A party objecting to discovery on grounds of undue burden is obliged to present evidence of the burden responding would entail, showing the quantum of work required, and to supply the basis for a determination that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.   Williams, supra.  See also West Pico Furniture Co .of Los Angeles v Superior Court. In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. Defendant has not met its burden in this regard.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Defendant shall provide supplementary Code compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, Nos.1-58 within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order.

Monetary sanctions of $1,600.00 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this motion. Code of Civ. Proc. 2031.300.

CV-26-002704 - CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants filed a Supplementary Reply contrary to the Court’s directions. Accordingly, Defendant’s Supplementary Reply shall be disregarded.

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement at issue and that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties that covers the instant dispute. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 et seq).

The court further finds, based on Defendants’ supplementary declaration, that Defendants have sufficiently authenticated. Plaintiff’s signature on the arbitration agreement at issue. Notably, Defendants have established that Plaintiff received an onboarding email from Central Valley Human Resources Department directing Plaintiff to the hiring system; that she was expected to create credentials using her previously verified email and to create a unique password to access a secure portal; evidence of a detailed chronology of documents viewed and signed during onboarding; as well as evidence associating the activity with Plaintiff's email address and unique user ID. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836; Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047; Garcia v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 41.

Viewed in conjunction with Defendants’ showing that Plaintiff electronically executed multiple onboarding documents on the same date within a close temporal frame and sequence, this evidence is sufficient to authenticate Plaintiff’s electronic signature and distinguish this case from those in which arbitration was denied for lack of attribution. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.)

Plaintiff’s procedural objections regarding timeliness and claimed extensions do not warrant denial of the motion. The motion was noticed and briefed in compliance with applicable rules, and there is no showing of waiver.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted as to moving Defendants only.

The action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. Evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as not material to the Court’s rulings.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

 

UD-25-000054 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs GUZMAN, RIGO - Defendant’s Motion for Attorney's Fees/Costs - HEARING REQUIRED.