Civil Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.12 concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 or ctreport@stanct.org to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing
The following are the tentative ruling 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-20-001252 – ZAGARIS, KAY vs GROESBECK, BERNARD W - Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendant's, Jeffery Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross Defendant, Laurie Jensen's Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer to Cross-Complaint – CONTINUED to March 24, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to March 24, 2026, for further review and consideration.
CV-24-003049 – WESTERN HILLS WATER DISTRICT vs WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC - Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The unopposed motion of Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP to be relieved as counsel for World International, LLC; Three60 LLC; Guillermo Marrero; Carmen Kearney; and Douglas Kearney is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the clients. Moving Counsel to note that the clients must be served by mail unless there is a signed consent in the court file from each of the clients agreeing to electronic service.
The information on the proposed order is no longer accurate. Moving Counsel to submit a new proposed order within 5 court days that indicates a case management conference is set for August 17, 2026, at 1:30 pm in Department 22.
CV-24-003155 – WESTERN HILLS WATER DISTRICT vs WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC - Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The unopposed motion of Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP to be relieved as counsel for World International, LLC; Three60 LLC; Guillermo Marrero; Carmen Kearney; and Douglas Kearney is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the clients. Moving Counsel to note that the clients must be served by mail unless there is a signed consent in the court file from each of the clients agreeing to electronic service.
The information on the proposed order is no longer accurate. Moving Counsel to submit a new proposed order within 5 court days that indicates a case status review is set for August 21, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:
CV-21-001610 – CATANO, BLANCA vs COMPASS FOODS INC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED to July 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. Class counsel shall submit a supplemental declaration advising the Court of the current status of the matter no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.
The hearing on the Court’s Motion to Dismiss is also CONTINUED to the above date.
CV-24-010321 – VAZQUEZ, GRISELDA vs CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES – a) Defendant Creative Alternatives' Motion for Summary Judgment, or in The Alternative, Summary Adjudication - SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED; SUMMARY ADJUDICATION GRANTED, IN PART (AS TO ISSUE 6), AND DENIED, IN PART (AS TO ISSUES 1-5, 7, 8). b) Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial – HEARING REQUIRED.
a) The Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has carried the initial burden of producing evidence supporting judgment and/or adjudication in its favor on all issues presented by the papers. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of material factual disputes preventing judgment or adjudication of the subject issues.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden with regard to Issue #6, as the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for leave under the CFRA and that Plaintiff had entirely exhausted her right to such leave by August, 2022. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot succeed on her 5th Cause of Action for Violation of the CFRA based on interference with or denial of her rights thereunder, and Defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of that issue.
As to the remaining Issues, Plaintiff has carried her burden of demonstrating triable factual disputes preventing summary adjudication in Defendant’s favor. (See, at a minimum, UMFs 28-32, 34, and Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts.) Of note, the Court references only the fact numbering for Issue #1 in the Separate Statement, as all 8 of Defendant’s defined issues rely on the same 34 facts (despite being numbered differently for each defined issue).
The parties’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.
b) The Court intends to hear from counsel on this matter.
CV-25-011555 – CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment – OVERRULED. b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages – DENIED.
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state her cause of action for fraudulent concealment. (See, e.g. Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc., (2011)198 Cal. App. 4th 230; Dhital v Nissan North America, Inc, (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828; Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)
b) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to support a claim for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294.)
UD-26-000011 – JONES, HARVEY vs JACKSON, NICHOLAS – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – DENIED.
Defendant has failed to meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, as he has not demonstrated the existence of new or different evidence which could not have been presented through the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the prior hearing. (See, e.g. Dickson v. Mann (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 935.)
In addition, Defendant’s supporting declaration concedes that he refused service when approached by the process server, making the latter’s actions sufficient to effect substituted service pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20. (See, e.g. Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v. Sabek, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1009.)
UD-26-000119 – KHATRI BROS LP vs BAR F PRODUCTS INC – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – DENIED.
Proof of service of the instant motion purports to demonstrate mailing to opposing counsel; however, the address listed in that regard differs from that which appears on Plaintiff’s pleadings and in the Court’s file herein. In the absence of any response from Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclude that the instant motion was properly served.
In addition, the Court notes that Mr. Sanders submitted a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.46) on 2-17-26, which predates this motion and constitutes a general appearance (Code Civ. Proc. § 1174.3).Therefore, the instant motion appears to be moot.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***
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:
***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***