January 21, 2026

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

CV-24-002753 – MUKADDES, ODISHO Y vs COVENANT LIVING WEST – a) Defendant's Motion for Release of Resident Records – GRANTED with conditions. b) Defendant's Motion for Trial Continuance – DENIED without prejudice.

a) The Court echoes Justice Kane’s discovery ruling and believes it is well-founded logically. The Court expresses no opinion on what portion of the records are themselves admissible evidence, but the standard is whether they may lead to admissible evidence. The referee has found (correctly, in this Court’s opinion, and based on an analysis of the case law) that a specific waiver for the medical records must be sought.

The standard for relevance for discovery inquiries is low. The Court agrees that the matter is not ripe, and the Court declines to find that individualized records cannot lead to admissible evidence.

Therefore, a letter notice shall be sent to those who have opted in prior to any release of such records. Plaintiff argues that the Kane ruling and Plaintiff’s counsel’s position mean that no such permission will be granted, so the motion is moot. This anticipatory finding has not yet occurred and misreads Justice Kane’s ruling. Further, Justice Kane expressly deferred some action to the trial court (This Court could, but does not, find that the medical records are irrelevant for all purposes.)

No sanctions are awarded to either party.

b) The Court may grant a continuance at some point, but it is currently unclear what amount of time, if any, will be needed.

CV-24-004875 – HINDS, GIB vs GLECASHMAN ALMOND RANCH ONE LLC – Plaintiff's Motion for Assignment Order – DENIED, without prejudice, for lack of proper service of motion and supporting papers as required for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510. No proof of service of the assignment motion appears in the submitted moving papers.

CV-24-005243 – MIRANDA, VERONICA vs MERCEDESBENZ USA LLC – Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's Discovery Order Dated October 3, 2025, and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Defendant Mercedes Benz USA LLC is ordered to provide a mutually agreeable PMQ deposition date within 24 hours of the Court’s order, with the deposition to occur within 15 days thereafter, and to produce all responsive documents identified in the operative deposition notice no later than the deposition date.

Additionally, the Court awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,010.00 jointly and severally against Defendant and its counsel and payable within 7 days of the order, in lieu of the full $2,435.00 requested. The reduced amount of sanctions reflects the fact that the motion to compel compliance was not opposed and no hearing was required.

The Court finds the relief granted herein warranted because Defendant failed to meet the December 3, 2025, deadline to produce its PMQ and documents under the Court’s October 3, 2025, order, and no opposition has been filed to justify noncompliance or to contest an award of sanctions.

Failure to comply with this order will result in evidentiary sanctions.

CV-25-010364 – BURNS, KAITLIN vs ADVANCED AMERICAN MANAGEMENT INC – Defendant's Motion to Compel Matter to Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims and Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration – GRANTED.

Plaintiff does not dispute she signed a stand-alone arbitration agreement, nor does she dispute the validity or enforceability of the agreement, and that the agreement covers the claims asserted in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff challenges the existence of mutual assent to arbitrate solely based on the absence of Defendant’s signature citing Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Inv. Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App. 4th 83 and other cases. In Marcus, the weight of the evidence was that one party did not actually elect to proceed to arbitration.

Defendant contends its signature is not required where its assent is demonstrated by conduct pursuant to Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App. 4th 165. The Court is persuaded Defendant’s assent to be bound by the arbitration agreement is sufficiently demonstrated by its conduct and the agreement itself and therefore compels arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims pursuant to the parties’ valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff’s putative class claims are DISMISSED based on the arbitration agreement’s waiver of class proceedings.

In order to promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent results, the Court exercises its discretion to STAY Plaintiff’s representative (PAGA) claims pending completion of the arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims.

The Court SETS a case status review hearing for May 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 to assess the status of the arbitration and any further proceedings. The parties shall file a brief joint status report no later than 10 court days before the hearing advising the Court of: (a) the arbitrator selected; (b) arbitration scheduling; (c) any resolved or pending issues affecting the scope or progress of arbitration; and (d) whether any court intervention is requested.

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

CV-20-001252 – ZAGARIS, KAY vs GROESBECK, BERNARD W – a) Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant's Jeffery Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – CONTINUED to January 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) Plaintiff's and Cross-Defendant's Jeffrey Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen’s Motion to Compel Verifications to Responses to Request for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Neal Groesbeck – CONTINUED to January 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. c) Plaintiff's and Cross-Defendant's Jeffrey Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen’s Motion to Compel Verifications to Responses to Request for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Kay Zagaris – CONTINUED to January 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-c) These matters are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to January 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, for further review and consideration. 

PR-25-001156 – IN THE MATTER OF THE HECTOR R ZELAYA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST – Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate Actions – DENIED without prejudice.

By way of this motion, Petitioner seeks to consolidate this case (PR-25-001156) with an unlawful detainer (“UD”) case (UD-25-001151). The motion is procedurally defective. It does not comply with Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court, which requires that the notice of motion be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. In addition, the Court notes that the UD case is the earlier-filed case. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).)

Furthermore, the Court notes that trust cases and UD cases make for an awkward pairing; different procedural rules govern them. The Court suggests that Petitioner consider the alternative of seeking a stay of the UD action pending the outcome of the trust case.

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

CV-22-001828 – LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO – Plaintiff Oscar Longoria's Motion to Compel Defendant City of Modesto's Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Four and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,560.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to February 11, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to filing the instant motion. Civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and the Court believes that the instant motion presents the type of dispute that should be amenable to informal resolution if genuine efforts are expended in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above, and counsel are instructed to meet and confer, in person or via telephone, in a good faith effort to narrow and/or resolve the issues presented herein.

The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement describing their efforts in this regard and briefly setting forth their positions on the items remaining in dispute, if any. The Joint Status Statement shall be submitted no later than February 5, 2026.

Lastly, counsel are reminded that good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.)

CV-23-003050 – GILL, MONIKA vs MINHAS, SANDEEP – Defendant's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The Court notes that the proposed order fails to include the client’s address and telephone number as required in Item 6. Therefore, counsel shall submit a revised form of order including that information for the Court’s signature.

The effective date of the order shall be delayed until counsel submits proof of service of the signed order on the client. (CRC 3.1362(e).)

CV-25-002621 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs KAUR, MANDEEP – Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admission as Admitted – DENIED, as MOOT.

The request is MOOT in view of Defendant’s service of verified responses on 1-14-26.

UD-25-000784 – STATE BANK OF TEXAS vs DHILLON, VIJAYPAL SINGH – Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Rent – DROPPED.

No moving papers have been filed.

UD-25-001397 – MA, HAIN Y vs DOUANGKAM, ALLEN – Defendant Alexandria Nevarez’s Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint – DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant’s proof of service and amended proof of service demonstrate that insufficient notice was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1170, 1013.)

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

CV-22-002584 – SINGERMAN, JEANETTE R vs SINGERMAN, WILLIAM D – a) Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication – VACATED, due to Removal to Federal Court. b) Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, or Alternatively, Require Undertaking – VACATED, due to Removal to Federal Court.

CV-23-005003 - CITIBANK NA vs RODRIGUEZ, ELIDA – Plaintiff's Motion to (1) Set Aside Notice of Settlement and (2) Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation – GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement between the parties of November 2023, and Defendant’s failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said Stipulated Settlement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said Stipulated Settlement.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted. The Notice of Conditional Settlement filed with the Court on January 5, 2024, is hereby set aside.

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $6432.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,320.62. (Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

CV-25-007241 – VOSS, CHARLES F vs NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC – Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings – GRANTED.

The Court finds that a valid enforceable arbitration agreement exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant Infiniti of Modesto covering the present dispute).  (9 USC § 1 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure §1281).

The Court further finds that a clear and unmistakable delegation clause is present in the arbitration agreement at issue. Therefore, the Court’s only duty here is to determine whether a valid agreement exists between the parties based on state contract law principles. (Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc., (2025) 114 Cal. App. 5^th 1170; Wilson-Davis v. SSP America, Inc., (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1080; Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., (2019) 586 U.S. 63, 67; Najarro v. Superior Ct., (2021), 70 Cal. App. 5th 871, as modified (Oct. 22, 2021); B.D. v. Blizzard Ent., Inc., (2022)76 Cal. App. 5th 931).

Based on the delegation clause, the issue of whether said arbitration agreement encompasses Plaintiff’s claims against Nissan North America is a matter to be determined by the arbitrator.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is hereby granted as to Defendant Infiniti of Modesto.  Plaintiff’s claims against Infiniti of Modesto are hereby ordered to arbitration as is the issue of the applicability of said arbitration agreement to Defendant Nissan North America.  Plaintiff’s claims against Nissan North America court proceedings herein are hereby stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against Infiniti of Modesto and potentially against Nissan North America.  (9 U.S.C.A. § 1 Code Civ. Proc. §1281.4).

CV-25-011339 - CEBRO FROZEN FOODS INC vs FANTAZIA, ROBERT – Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Right to Attach – VACATED, due to Removal to Federal Court.

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:

UD-25-001374 – JAMKE vs WALCZAK, WILLIAM – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – HEARING REQUIRED.