Civil Tentative Rulings

October 30, 2026

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

CV-26-006785 - G, M vs THERAPYMATCH INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions about the expected conversion rate and the reason for seeking approval in state court rather than federal court. The Court also has questions about the authorization for pseudononymous filing.

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

CV-26-009430 - IN RE W, K - Petitioner's Verified Petition for Approval of Transfer of Payment Rights - CONTINUED to December 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

The petition of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC for approval of transfer of structured settlement payment rights is CONTINUED to December 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. No later than 20 days before the continued hearing, petitioner shall file and serve on all interested parties:

(1) a certified copy of the court order and estate or probate documents by which Kenneth Wilson acquired rights under the annuity;

(2) a complete copy of the order or other documents referenced in Symetra Life Insurance Company’s April 4, 2023 letter designating Kenneth Wilson III and Lenei E. Wilson as irrevocable payees;

(3) a declaration and supporting identification resolving whether Kenneth Wilson II and Kenneth Wilson III are the same person;

(4) proof of service on Lenei E. Wilson, or competent evidence establishing that she has no interest affected by the proposed transfer;

(5) a declaration from Symetra identifying the correct annuity contract number, all current payees and beneficiaries, each payee’s percentage interest, the current monthly benefit, the precise payments proposed for transfer, and the precise payments and amounts Mr. Wilson will retain before and after the transfer;

(6) any available special-needs-trust, estate, beneficiary-designation, qualified-assignment, minor’s-compromise, and settlement documents bearing on ownership, anti-assignment restrictions, or the rights of interested parties;

(7) a current certified child-support arrearage and lien payoff, together with a closing statement showing whether the arrearage will be paid directly and the exact net amount Mr. Wilson will receive;

(8) a corrected declaration reconciling the proposed uses of proceeds to the $120,000 purchase price and supplying supporting statements for the debts, vehicle lease, housing need, legal expenses, and business expenses;

(9) a household budget identifying all income, expenses, dependents, the anticipated newborn’s expected birth date, and other household resources, together with alternatives considered to selling the annuity payments; and

(10) a revised proposed order accurately identifying the payee, annuity contract, transferred payments, retained payments, interested parties, and disposition of the child-support lien.

Kenneth Wilson II shall personally appear at the continued hearing. The Court defers all findings required by Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (a). The Court further advises Mr. Wilson that it may deny or further defer approval if the record does not establish his ownership and full understanding of the transaction, or if the Court concludes that he should obtain independent legal or financial advice under Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (b)(14).

PR-26-000073 - IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

a) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Following the Court-ordered meet-and-confer process and Respondent’s service of supplemental responses, Petitioner has substantially narrowed the issues presented by the motion. Petitioner presently seeks further responses only to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 24, and 25. Petitioner expressly does not request a ruling as to Special Interrogatory No. 26.

The Court concludes that further responses are warranted as follows:

Special Interrogatory No. 1: The motion is GRANTED. The interrogatory asks Respondent to state the date on which she first exercised decision-making authority over Trust assets, identify each Trust asset held on that date and its total value, and state whether the beginning inventory reflected in any accounting corresponds to that date. Respondent’s supplemental response identifies dates associated with her exercise of authority at particular financial institutions, but does not directly answer each portion of the interrogatory.

Respondent shall serve a further verified response stating, to the extent reasonably available after inquiry: (1) the date on which she contends she first exercised decision-making authority over Trust assets; (2) each Trust-titled asset then held; (3) the total value of those assets on that date; and (4) whether the beginning inventory reflected in the accounting corresponds to that date. If particular information cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, Respondent may so state. Respondent is not required to create a new valuation or other document.

Special Interrogatory No. 2: The motion is GRANTED. The interrogatory asks Respondent to identify each role in which she exercised decision-making authority over Trust assets and the date each role began. The supplemental response discusses Respondent’s uncertainty regarding actions undertaken pursuant to a power of attorney and identifies her status as representative payee, but does not directly identify each capacity in which Respondent contends she exercised decision-making authority over Trust assets and the date each capacity began.

Respondent shall serve a further verified response identifying each capacity in which she contends she exercised decision-making authority over Trust assets and the date each capacity began. Respondent may expressly state that she did not exercise authority in a particular capacity if that is her position.

Special Interrogatory No. 24: The motion is GRANTED. The interrogatory asks whether Respondent maintains any record from which all tangible personal property located within each Trust real property on the date she first exercised decision-making authority can be identified. Respondent’s original response states that no inventory was prepared because Mary Ann McBride was alive at that time. No separately numbered supplemental response to this interrogatory was provided.

The interrogatory does not require Respondent to create a retrospective inventory. It asks whether Respondent maintains any existing record from which the property can be identified. Respondent shall serve a further verified response stating whether she maintains any such record. If responsive records exist, Respondent shall identify them. If no such records are maintained, Respondent shall expressly so state.

Special Interrogatory No. 25: The motion is GRANTED. The interrogatory asks Respondent to identify each bank or investment account held in the name of the Trust during the administration period and, for each account, provide the financial institution, last four digits, date opened, and date closed. The original response referred generally to the accounting, and the supplemental response states that the opening and closing dates are reflected in previously produced bank and brokerage statements.

Respondent argues that Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 permits her to refer Petitioner to the previously produced bank and brokerage statements because the burden of extracting the requested information is substantially the same for both parties. However, the record reflects that Respondent’s original interrogatory responses were untimely. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), provides that a party who fails to serve a timely response waives the right to exercise the section 2030.230 option, absent relief from waiver. No such relief has been shown.

Respondent shall therefore serve a further verified, account-by-account response identifying, to the extent reasonably ascertainable, each Trust-titled bank or investment account during the administration period, including the financial institution, last four digits, opening date, and closing date, or whether the account remains open. If a particular item of information cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, Respondent may so state.

Respondent shall serve the foregoing verified further responses within 20 calendar days of service of this order.

To the extent the motion originally sought further responses to other special interrogatories that Petitioner no longer presents for Court determination, the motion is DENIED as MOOT.

No monetary sanctions were requested in the original notice of motion and motion, so none are awarded.

b) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Following the Court-ordered meet-and-confer process, additional document production, and Respondent’s service of supplemental responses, Petitioner has substantially narrowed the issues presented by the motion. Petitioner presently seeks further responses only to Requests for Production Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 19.

The Court does not conclude that Respondent must create documents that do not exist. However, Respondent’s October 23, 2026 response to Petitioner’s supplemental status report makes several representations concerning the results of Respondent’s search for additional responsive documents that were not included in the supplemental discovery responses themselves. Further verified discovery responses are therefore appropriate.

Request for Production No. 9: The motion is GRANTED. The request seeks documents reflecting the opening and closing of Trust bank and investment accounts. Respondent’s supplemental response states that she previously produced opening and closing account statements but does not state that no additional responsive closure records exist or can be produced. Respondent’s October 23 filing, however, states that after reasonable inquiry and review she has not located separate closure confirmations or additional responsive account-closure records in her possession, custody, or control.

Respondent shall serve a further verified response reflecting the results of her diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Respondent shall produce any additional responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control that have not previously been produced. If no additional responsive records can be produced, Respondent shall provide a code-compliant statement of inability to comply.

Request for Production No. 10: The motion is GRANTED. Respondent supplemented her production with additional photographs and correspondence, but the supplemental response does not clearly state whether all responsive inventories, lists, catalogs, photograph logs, tracking records, or similar records have been produced. Respondent now represents that she produced the responsive records located after reasonable inquiry and has no additional responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control.

Respondent shall serve a further verified response stating whether all responsive records in her possession, custody, or control have been produced and shall produce any additional responsive records that have not previously been produced. If additional responsive records cannot be produced after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Respondent shall provide a code-compliant statement of inability to comply. Respondent is not required to create an inventory or other record that does not exist.

Request for Production No. 12: The motion is GRANTED. This request seeks documents sufficient to show Respondent’s decision to allow tangible personal property to remain with or transfer with real property upon transfer of title. No separately numbered supplemental response to Request No. 12 was provided. Respondent’s October 23 filing states that correspondence previously produced concerning the personal property is responsive and that Respondent cannot produce additional documents that were never created or are not in her possession, custody, or control.

Respondent shall serve a separately numbered verified further response identifying the responsive documents being produced or previously produced. If Respondent has no additional responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the response shall so state.

Request for Production No. 19: The motion is GRANTED. This request seeks documents reflecting any agreement, authorization, or written consent under which Respondent contends she continued to manage or pay expenses for Trust real property after title transferred. No separately numbered supplemental response to Request No. 19 was provided. Respondent’s October 23 filing states that invoices and payment records have been produced and that Respondent cannot produce separate written agreements where none exist.

Respondent shall serve a separately numbered verified further response stating whether any responsive agreement, authorization, or written consent exists. Respondent shall produce any such document in her possession, custody, or control that has not previously been produced. If no responsive document exists or can be produced after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Respondent shall provide a code-compliant statement of inability to comply.

Respondent shall serve the foregoing verified further responses, and produce any additional responsive documents required by those responses, within 20 calendar days of service of this order.

To the extent the motion originally sought further responses to other requests for production that Petitioner no longer presents for Court determination, the motion is DENIED as MOOT.

No monetary sanctions were requested in the original notice of motion and motion, so none are awarded.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 23***

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

CV-23-006303 - HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY INC vs FERREIRA, TIMOTHY - Defendant/Cross Complainant's Cross Petition for Writ of Mandate for Failure to Comply with Shareholder Inspection Obligations; for Failure to Comply with Partnership Books & Records Requests; and Breach of Fiduciary Duty - GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

The Court wishes to inform counsel that the Court is in the middle of a jury trial and that therefore the Court can only allocate 30 minutes total time for argument should argument be requested.

Physical Inspection

A shareholder’s common-law right of inspection may extend to corporate property where inspection is necessary or proper to protect the shareholder’s interests. The right is not absolute, and the Court may consider the shareholder’s purpose, the necessity and scope of the requested inspection, and conditions needed to protect the corporation from unnecessary disruption or misuse. Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co. (1913) 164 Cal. 497, 501–503; see also Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704.

Here, the Trustee has established a proper purpose for seeking inspection. The stated purposes include valuing the Trust’s minority interests for estate-tax reporting and trust administration. The record also demonstrates a genuine valuation dispute. The applicable excess-earnings methodology incorporates a tangible-asset base, the parties’ experts disagree whether the records produced are sufficient to determine the value and condition of Hilmar’s fixed assets, and Hilmar’s witnesses acknowledged that some information concerning asset condition or obsolescence may not be maintained in written reports.

The Trustee has not, however, established that a complete, tag-by-tag inventory of every asset at each facility is reasonably necessary. Hilmar’s evidence indicates that a credible historical valuation may be performed using the fixed-asset registers and related records already produced. A present-day inspection also has limited utility in determining the condition of assets on the relevant historical valuation dates because assets may have been acquired, retired, replaced, or altered in the interim. The requested multi-day inspection would additionally impose material operational, food-safety, security, and personnel burdens on active production facilities.

The competing considerations support a limited verification inspection rather than either complete denial or the unrestricted inspection requested by the Trustee. Accordingly, Hilmar Cheese Company, Inc. and the relevant Hilmar entities shall permit a limited physical inspection of the Hilmar, California and Dalhart, Texas facilities, subject to the following conditions:

1. The inspection shall not exceed one business day at each facility, absent written agreement of the parties or further order of the Court.
2. The inspection shall be limited to verifying the existence, general condition, and functional status of material fixed assets relevant to the valuation dates. It shall not include a complete asset inventory, an operational audit, unrestricted employee interviews, or a tag-by-tag examination of all equipment.
3. The Trustee’s inspection team shall consist of no more than two qualified appraisers, together with one attorney or Trustee representative if Hilmar determines that the additional attendee can be accommodated without materially interfering with operations.
4. Before the inspection, the Trustee shall provide a written protocol identifying the material asset classes to be examined, the proposed route, the persons who will attend, and any limited questions the appraisers seek to ask appropriate Hilmar personnel.
5. All participants shall comply with Hilmar’s reasonable food-safety, confidentiality, security, personal-protective-equipment, escort, and operational requirements.
6. Photography may be restricted as reasonably necessary to protect confidential information, food safety, security, and proprietary processes. Any permitted photographs or inspection materials shall remain subject to the existing protective order and nondisclosure obligations.
7. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the inspection dates and protocol. Any unresolved implementation dispute shall be presented to the Court by a concise joint statement identifying the disputed issue and each side’s proposed resolution.

Dodge City Facility

The request for a physical inspection of the Dodge City facility is DENIED.

The facility had not broken ground as of Ralph Ahlem’s date of death and was only in an early stage of construction near Dianne Ahlem’s date of death. A present inspection of the subsequently developed facility would provide limited evidence of the assets that existed on the relevant historical valuation dates and could improperly incorporate later construction and operations. Existing construction-in-progress and contemporaneous cost records are more probative of the facility’s status and value as of September 13, 2022.

Books and Records

Corporations Code section 1601 permits a shareholder to inspect accounting books, records, and minutes for a purpose reasonably related to the shareholder’s interests. Section 1603 authorizes judicial enforcement following refusal of a lawful demand and permits the Court to impose just and proper conditions. Corporations Code section 16403 similarly provides qualifying rights to partnership books, records, and information.

The Court will not issue a blanket order requiring Hilmar to create records it does not maintain or to produce broad categories that were not the subject of a sufficiently identified statutory demand. The evidence indicates that Hilmar has already produced substantial financial, fixed-asset, valuation, tax, corporate, and operational information. The Trustee nevertheless identifies evidence suggesting that certain detailed Dodge City construction budgets, construction-in-progress records, and maintenance information may exist and may not have been produced.

Accordingly, the request for further books and records is GRANTED only as to an existing record or sufficiently defined category of records for which the Trustee establishes:

1. The precise record or category sought;
2. The date and language of the prior written demand;
3. That the record exists and is held by the entity against which production is sought;
4. That Hilmar refused or failed to produce the record; and
5. That the record was not included in the prior productions.

To the extent these requirements are established on the record at the hearing, Hilmar shall produce the identified existing records subject to the protective order. In all other respects, the request for additional books and records is DENIED without prejudice to ordinary discovery or a later properly supported statutory demand.

Disposition

The Cross-Petition is therefore:

• GRANTED as to a limited, safeguarded verification inspection of the Hilmar, California and Dalhart, Texas facilities;
• DENIED as to a complete or tag-by-tag asset inventory;
• DENIED as to a physical inspection of the Dodge City facility; and
• GRANTED in part, as to specifically identified, existing books and records that were the subject of a lawful demand and were not produced, but otherwise DENIED, without prejudice.

This ruling does not determine the fair market value of the Trust’s interests, the operative redemption price, the validity or effect of the buy-sell agreements, the amount of any estate-tax obligation, or the merits of any breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

CV-25-004023 - MARINO, PHILLIP vs TALKINGTON INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA 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:

11-13--26	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
11-30-26	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
2-1-27	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
2-11-27	Deadline for Class Administrator to Submit Declaration of Compliance and Due Diligence.
2-18-27	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for March 15, 2027, 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.

CV-26-000462 - CASAREZ, ENRIQUE vs WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Response to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant Casarez has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories served on Defendant on April 16, 2026, or at all. The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b))

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by Plaintiff to said discovery are hereby waived. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection free responses to said Form Interrogatories, Set One without objections within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order. (CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).)

The Court also finds that said failure to respond is without substantial justification and accordingly finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions of $562.50 for attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a).

Plaintiff is advised that mere self-representation is not ground for exceptionally lenient treatment, and except when a particular rule provides otherwise, rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forego attorney representation. Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***