Civil Tentative Rulings

April 28, 2026

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

CV-24-006578 – SHAFFER, DEE vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the last hearing but had not timely notified defense counsel of his intent to contest. The Court chose to give defense counsel an opportunity to contest and ordered him to give notice of this hearing at the last hearing, but declined to discuss the case on the merits.

 

The Court’s tentative ruling remains as follows:

Preliminarily, by agreement of the parties and an oral express waiver of any irregularity given the filing of the Second Amended Complaint during the pendency of this motion, the Court has jurisdiction. Under State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^th 1127), waiver of this issue appears to be permissible and in this case there was an express waiver to avoid the need to refile the motion. The Court and the parties each believe that I have jurisdiction and therefore reach the merits.

 

The issue of a loose cable has been abandoned by both sides.

 

Objections:

 

Defendant’s objections to the Moore declaration:

 

1. SUSTAINED. The Best Evidence Rule suffered setbacks over the years and was entirely repealed effective January 1, 1999. Nonetheless, see the discussion of foundation below.

 

2. SUSTAINED.

 

3. SUSTAINED.

 

4. SUSTAINED as to foundation.

 

5. SUSTAINED. (See, for instance, Garibay v. Hammat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4^th 735.)

 

6. SUSTAINED as to testimony of Mr. Daniel, OVERRULED as to conclusion based on other evidence.

 

7. OVERRULED. It is, to some degree, speculation, but that goes to weight.

 

8. SUSTAINED.

 

Plaintiff currently alleges a slip and fall over a floor outlet box at the Stanislaus County Veterans Center on September 21, 2023. The fall caused serious injuries. The outlet box is a silver metal square or rectangle on the floor with a round metal cover where electrical plugs might be used. The box appears to have tape residue on it from some type of industrial tape. The person overseeing the venue, Robert Daniel took a picture of the box after Plaintiff described the fall and it shows a round metal cover raised slightly.

 

Defendant’s expert, Bong Walsh, opined that the height of the outlet base and the flap relative to the base and concluded that the maximum height of the entire apparatus was a maximum of 9/32 of an inch, with the outlet itself being 1/8 to 5/32 of an inch, and the flap being an additional 3/32 to 1/8 of an inch. These height differentials are consistent with safety standards on walking surfaces

 

Plaintiff’s expert Robert Moore provided a contrary declaration in which he asserts that the cover was resting on a screw, and that the combined size of the outlet and cover was about ½ of an inch, which posed a risk to elderly people. Plaintiff’s expert measured the height of the outlet box at 0.19 inches (photos 21 and 22) and the height of the resting cover was 0.10 inches. Moore asserts that a normally elderly step clearance is 0.44 inches.

 

Moore asserts that if a contrasting color tape were put on the outlet box the injury would not have occurred. The color photos show a silver metallic outlet box on a wooden floor.

 

Moore also opined that Daniel’s review of the site was insufficient because he did not see the uplifted outlet cover. Moore does not offer evidence as to how he knew the outlet cover was in the same state when reviewed as when it was tripped over.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The question posed here is simple: Is the Moore declaration sufficient evidence to overcome the Walsh declaration’s conclusions. It is not, for the reasons outlined below.

 

A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact….” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, as modified (July 11, 2001) (Aguilar).) “A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id., at p. 851.) A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies its initial burden by proving either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense. (Ibid.) The facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be accepted as true. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.)

 

The initial burden by Defendant has been reached. He has testimony that the total change in elevation is, at most, slightly over a quarter inch which even pursuant to Moore’s declaration would not normally be a safety hazard.

 

The Court is obliged to consider the factual basis for the expert’s conclusions. (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4^th 493.) Moore asserts that the cover was entirely on top of the screw, but the photographs taken by Moore in the resting position appear at least similar to the photographs taken near in time to the fall. The cause or reason why the screw would hold up the cover before and not now are not provided.

 

Moore also uses photographs of cover in a partially open position, but in order to do so is holding it with his hand. At the time of the fall, the cover was not being held with an open hand.

 

Crucially, the Moore declaration does not establish the foundation for the height of the upraised cover, either through photogrammetry or any other method. Further, while there are many photos attached, Moore omits any reference to the specific photograph which would constitute a 0.47 inch deviation in height from the floor. The use of photos where the raised portion is raised by holding it there do not indicate how this would have occurred without holding them there.

 

The Court also does not accept the representation by Moore that “there was minimal color differentiation between the uplifted outlet cover and the adjacent floor surface.” Moore does not expand on this, but the Court viewed the color photographs with care. Moore’s statement that a color change between the outlet and the floor would have prevented this appears inconsistent with the Court’s understanding of colors.

 

Defendant also argues lack of notice, primarily by arguing that the condition did not exist. As the Court finds insufficient evidence to overcome Defendant’s showing, the lack of notice argument is moot. If the Court reached the lack of notice argument, it would find that Plaintiff’s showing was insufficient to overcome the Daniels’ declaration assertion of regular inspections before events. (See Restivo v. City of Petaluma (2025) 111 Cal.App.5^th 267.)

 

This is an unusually sympathetic plaintiff who appears to have suffered a serious injury. Nonetheless, the experts agree that a 0.29 inch height differential is permissible and does not normally pose a safety hazard, even if it did here. The Court is bound to grant the motion based on the admissible facts.

 

Defendant is to prepare the order.

CV-25-001398 – TAPIA, JOSEFINA LEON vs GEMPERLE EGG PACKING CO INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class and PAGA Representative Action Settlement – GRANTED.

 

The Court has reviewed the settlement of this wage and hours dispute, and finds that the $425,000 amount of the settlement is reasonable. No one filed any objections, requests for exclusion, or workweek disputes for the settlement.

 

The Court finds the attorney fees, class representative fees, allocation to the LWDA, and payments to the settlement administrator reasonable.

 

Uncashed settlement funds after 180 days will be distributed to Sierra Vista Child and Family Services pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 384(b).

 

A final compliance hearing will be set on February 19, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21. No later than five days before that date, the Settlement administrator shall file a declaration reporting the funding, distribution of payments, reissued or uncashed checks, cy pres distribution, and tax reporting. 

CV-25-012629 – SYNCHRONY BANK vs MARRUJO, DANNIEL PAUL – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

A registered process server’s proof of service gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of proper service (Evid. Code, § 647), and that presumption has been rebutted.

 

Defendant has presented competent evidence rebutting the key factual assertions in the proof of service. Defendant’s declaration and supporting security‑camera screenshots indicate that the January 13, 2026 recipient was a temporary contractor performing repair work at the residence—not a “competent member of the household”—and that the process server did not confirm residency or authority to accept service.

 

Because valid service was not effected, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant at this time. The purported service of summons is quashed.

 

This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to re‑serve Defendant in compliance with statutory requirements. The January 8, 2027 court trial is confirmed.

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

CV-24-009644 – CARVALHO, TALISSA vs CALDERON, FRANK VINCENT – Plaintiff’s Application for Order for Publication of Summons and Complaint – GRANTED.

 

Plaintiff applies for an order directing service of the summons and complaint by publication on Defendant Frank Vincent Calderon. Plaintiff made at least 13 unsuccessful service attempts between November 7, 2025 and February 23, 2026.

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application for Order for Publication of Summons and Complaint.

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 Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-21-002797 – ROY, NATASHA H vs PRASAD, MALVIN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs of Partition and Surcharge Against Defendant’s Share of Sale Proceeds – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

Plaintiff’s attorney fees incurred up to November 30, 2022, already paid to her attorney Christie Lee in the sum of $14,165.28 shall be borne by the parties according to their respective interests in the property as having been incurred for the common benefit.  (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957).  Plaintiff will therefore be reimbursed for the said costs to the tune of $7,032.64. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 874.010, and 874.040;  (Watson v. Sutro (1894) 103 Cal. 169; Muller v. Martin (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 431; Stutz v. Davis, (1981)122 Cal. App. 3d 1; Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527)

Plaintiff’s attorney fees incurred in the amount of $11,849.00 after Defendants reneged on the private sale agreed upon and engaged in other obstructive conduct such as refusing to allow potential purchasers or their agents, or inspectors access to view the property, and failing and or refusing to provide necessary information, on account of such conduct, shall be deducted from Defendants’ share of sale proceeds. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 874.010, and 874.040). 

Plaintiff’s request to impose an equitable surcharge of $101,340 being the difference between the buyer’s March 4, 2024, offer of $639,990 and the ultimate partition sale price of $538,650, on Defendants share of sale proceeds due to their conduct in obstructing said sale is denied.

Additional attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $2,670 plus filing fees shall be charged to the sale proceeds and paid to Plaintiff. (Regalado v. Regalado, (1961)198 Cal. App. 2d 549)

CV-22-004051 – KING, THOMAS vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings in this matter. 

Therefore, this matter is continued to July 15, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-002670 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs VENTURA, ANTONIO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds, based on Petitioner’s Request for Admissions deemed conclusively  admitted by the  Court on 12/12/25 against Real Party in Interest Antonio Ventura in this matter that the Respondent property $67,430.00 U.S. Currency was furnished or intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more of certain enumerated drug trafficking offenses, all of which occurred within five years of the seizure of the Respondent property, that said Respondent Property is subject to forfeiture and that Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment herein.   (C.C.P. §2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court, (2014 )223 Cal.App.4th 762; C.C.P. §

Accordingly, summary judgment is hereby granted Petitioner.

CV-24-001917 – DISCOVER BANK vs JACQUEZ, YOLANDA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement – GRANTED.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of May 2, 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 $398 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $7,539.81. (Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

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:

UD-23-001519 – ZARATE, JUAN, Jr vs CARRANZA, JAIME – Defendant’s Motion to Seal Record of Unlawful Detainer – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000099 – RIVERBANK RIVERVIEW GARDEN APARTMENTS LP vs WILBURN, KIMBERLY – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000326 – MALLHI, SURINDER K vs RODRIGUES, JAMES BYRON – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.