Civil Tentative Rulings

July 23, 2026

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***

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

CV-24-006546 – JACKSON, THUY vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

Defendants, as the moving parties, have met their burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on the two remaining causes of action in the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) Based on the declarations of William A. Fogelman and Shiv Samtani and the evidence submitted therewith, as well as the matters subject to judicial notice herein, Defendants have demonstrated compliance with Civ. Code § 2924.9.

The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing the existence of material factual disputes preventing judgment. Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden in this regard. The Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted no evidence and erroneously relies on the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint to support her position, which is insufficient on summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment herein.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s objections are not submitted in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court declines to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)  

PR-22-000750 – ESTATE OF MAYHUE, WENDY D – a) Petitioner Stuart Jones’ Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

a) Requests for Production, Set Two

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Administrator Joseph Mayhue shall serve verified further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, Nos. 3 through 5, within 20 days of service of the order and shall produce all responsive, nonprivileged documents.

Objections based on relevance, overbreadth, privacy, and the existence of the related civil action are OVERRULED. Any responsive documents containing account numbers or comparable identifying financial information may be appropriately redacted. Any claim of privilege shall be supported by a privilege log.

The request to deem all objections waived is DENIED.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds Administrator's opposition was supported by substantial justification concerning the relationship between this proceeding and the related civil action.

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

b) Special Interrogatories, Set Two

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Administrator Joseph Mayhue shall serve verified code-compliant further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 10 through 14, within 20 days of service of the order.

Objections based solely on relevance, overbreadth, privacy, and the existence of the related civil action are OVERRULED. Any claim of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection shall be supported by a privilege log sufficient to evaluate the claim.

The request to deem all objections waived is DENIED.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds Administrator's opposition was supported by substantial justification concerning the relationship between this proceeding and the related civil action.

Moving Party to submit a proposed order in 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:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

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

CV-23-001227 – CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION SYSTEM – Defendant’s Motion to Strike – GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 authorizes the Court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter and any pleading or portion thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the Court.

The Court previously found that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are barred by sections 8.16 and 9.0 of the parties’ ISISA, that any claim for delay damages would not be recoverable, and that the waiver contained in section 8.16 is effective and valid. The Court reiterated those findings in ruling on Defendants’ motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint again includes requests and allegations seeking actual damages, delay damages, and related monetary relief. Those allegations and prayers are stricken.

The Court also previously rejected Plaintiffs’ allegations that the ISISA or section 8.16 constitutes an unenforceable contract of adhesion or unconscionable release, finding such arguments unsupported and legally untenable in light of section 8.6 of the parties’ agreement. Plaintiffs’ renewed allegations that the Study Agreement is adhesive, that section 8.16 was hidden or outside Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, or that section 8.16 is unconscionable are therefore stricken.

The Court further finds that the Third Amended Complaint continues to include allegations concerning the Oak Flat/Patterson project, Marshall/Enchanted Rock project, Ardilla project, TID policies and procedures, queue handling, ATC, CAISO/WEIM access, RFPs, transmission applications, PLR requirements, and alleged third-party economic relationships that exceed the permissible scope of amendment and/or reallege matters previously ordered stricken. In the March 2026 ruling, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to maintain only challenged portions relating to the Second Cause of Action or solely to the Government Claims Act compliance requirement for that cause of action. Plaintiffs may not retain previously stricken matter by relabeling it as background, motive, bad faith, or context. Those allegations are stricken. The court does not find  any  particular allegation as necessary to the surviving Second Cause of Action and not inconsistent with the Court’s prior orders.

Without addressing the issue of whether Defendant’s motion is barred for seeking to strike on new grounds that could have been raised earlier, the Court finds that the challenged provisions may be stricken to enforce conformity with the court’s prior orders limiting the permissible scope of amendment. Code of Civil Procedure  § 436(b).

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is granted. Code of Civil Procedure § 436 (a).

The Court grants the motion without further leave to amend as to material previously ordered stricken and realleged in the Third Amended Complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs seek further leave, Plaintiffs must make a showing identifying what additional facts could be pleaded that would cure the defects and explaining how any proposed amendment would comply with the Court’s prior orders. Any leave to amend would be limited to conformity to the Court’s orders and to the maintenance of allegations limited to Plaintiff’s Implied Covenant claims and Government Claims Act compliance only.

CV-24-000280 – BACHICHA, MARIA vs WILLIAMS, SHAKEELAH – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

Good cause existing, the Court hereby GRANTS Counsel Kelly S. Moir leave to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Pedro Vega.

The Court’s order relieving Counsel shall take effect upon proof of service of same on Defendant. (CRC 3.1362).

The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

CV-25-004323 – RICE, JAMES vs TERRACE AND DRIFTWOOD MHPS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause existing, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel Michael Kahn’s motion to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jerry Rice subject to clarification as to the mode of service of this motion on Plaintiff. 

CV-24-002421 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs MIRANDA, RAYMOND – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds, based on a review of the evidence adduced, notably, Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One deemed conclusively  admitted by the  Court on February 20, 2026,  against Real Party in Interest Raymond Miranda in this matter, and Real Party in interest’s conviction on August 9, 2024,  of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, that the Respondent property $8,909.00 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.  Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.410; St. Mary v Superior Court (2014), 223 Cal.App. 4th 762.

The court further finds that no triable issue of fact remains as to Petitioner’s petition for forfeiture of said sum. Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c).

Summary judgment is accordingly hereby granted Petitioner.

CV-25-008787 – GHAI, CHARANJIT vs CITY OF CERES CITY COUNCIL – Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to DENY the petition for the reasons set forth below but will hear argument in this case.

Request for Judicial Notice

A court may take judicial notice of the existence and authenticity of public records, official acts, and similar materials. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) However, judicial notice does not extend to the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual assertions contained in those materials. Nor may judicial notice be used in CEQA mandamus proceedings to introduce extra‑record evidence to prove or justify an agency’s decision, which must stand or fall on the administrative record before the agency at the time it acted. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 573–575 [discussing same]; cf. Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564–1568 [discussing general principles of judicial notice].)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Respondent’s and the real-parties-in-interest’s request for judicial notice solely as to the existence of the identified documents and records. However, to the extent the responding parties are seek notice of the truth of disputed matters or consideration of extra‑record evidence to support the merits, the request is DENIED.

Class 32 Infill Exemption

A project qualifies for the Class 32 infill exemption only if all five of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the project must be consistent with the general plan, zoning ordinance, and any applicable specific plan, including designation, density, and use; (2) the site is within city limits and located on a parcel substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) the site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) the site is adequately served by existing utilities and public services (e.g., water, sewer, fire, police). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15332.)

The City can point to record evidence supporting each criterion. (See AR1033–AR1034; AR1252; AR1265; AR1267; AR1562-AR1564; AR1657.) Although Petitioners have meaningful support in the record challenging certain factors (see AR1562–AR1564; AR1657; AR2067; AR2324–AR2327), all conflicts in evidence must be resolved in favor of the City (see Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571). It therefore appears that the record satisfies the City’s burden.

“Unusual Circumstances” Exception

Once it has been determined a project meets the requirements of a categorical exemption, “ ‘a party challenging the exemption has the burden of producing evidence supporting an exception.’ [Citation.]” (Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 186, 196, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 6, 2023).)

Petitioners contend that the “unusual circumstances” exception is applicable. To that end, Petitioners attempt to prove the following: (1) there are unusual circumstances relating to some feature of the project that distinguish the project from others in the same category; and (2) there is a reasonable possibility of significant effect due to the unusual circumstance. (See Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 819-820 (Walters).)

“Whether the project presents unusual circumstances … is a factual inquiry subject to the traditional substantial evidence standard of review. [Citation.] This standard requires that [the court] ‘resolv[e] all evidentiary conflicts in the agency's favor and indulg[e] in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the agency's finding.’ [Citation.]” (Walters, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 820.)

If unusual circumstances exist, the “reasonable possibility” component is evaluated under a fair-argument type inquiry. (See Walters, supra.)

The record contains City staff statements emphasizing extraordinary truck-route intensity: Mitchell Road is described as a significant truck route, with truck volumes “not matched anywhere else in this County,” and describing the location as an entrance from SR‑99 into the Mitchell corridor. (AR0111; AR0388.) Petitioners tie that truck-intensive setting to their expert evidence asserting safety/site-access problems and undisclosed roadway improvements needed to accommodate truck movements. (AR2324–AR2327; AR1562–AR1564.) Respondents, in turn, rely on the same truck-route context as showing the Project is appropriately sited within an RC freeway-interchange commercial framework. (AR1033; AR1079–AR1081.)

Again, where there is conflicting evidence, the Court must resolve those conflicts in the City’s favor and draw all “legitimate and reasonable” inferences in favor of the City to uphold the City’s findings.

The City concluded that no exceptions—including unusual circumstances—were applicable. As there is substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion, the Court must defer to the City’s findings.

CUP Findings and General Plan Consistency

CUP approvals are quasi-judicial; findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must articulate an analytic bridge between evidence and decision. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515.)

Here, City staff laid out CUP findings and related analyses, including (i) interdepartmental routing and compliance with City standards and plan/zoning framework (AR1034), and (ii) traffic/roadway adequacy findings referencing required off-site improvements, Mitchell Road’s truck-route status, and traffic analysis/VMT review. (AR1034‑1040.)

There is thus record evidence supporting the City’s CUP findings. (AR1034–AR1035.) While the Petitioners argue that the findings are conclusory or do not address the specific analytic objections regarding truck ingress/egress and site access in the corridor setting (see AR2324–AR2327), it appears to the Court that the City addressed each of the objections that Petitioners raised during City proceedings and reasonably tied the evidence in the record to its decisions.

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 in Department 19***