Civil Tentative Rulings

July 22, 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-22-003958 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs ABARCA, FRANCISCO J – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Petitioner, the People of the State of California, seeks forfeiture of Respondent United States Currency in the amount of $4,213.00. Petitioner has met its burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact and that the property is subject to forfeiture as a matter of law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p).)

The evidence submitted in support of the motion establishes that the respondent currency was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance within five years of its seizure. (SUF No. 1:1.) The evidence further establishes that the currency constituted proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance occurring within five years of its seizure. (SUF No. 1:2.) Petitioner also establishes that the currency was used or intended to be used to facilitate the sale or transportation of a controlled substance occurring within five years of its seizure. (SUF No. 1:3.)

These facts are established through requests for admissions that were deemed admitted by court order. Specifically, the Court previously ordered that all requests for admissions served upon Real Party in Interest Francisco Javier Abarca were deemed admitted for all purposes. (SUF No. 2:1.) The admissions include that the respondent currency was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, and was used or intended to be used to facilitate a controlled substance offense.

Petitioner has also established the required underlying criminal conviction. On April 5, 2024, Francisco Javier Abarca pled guilty/no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 in Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CR-22-010491. (SUF No. 2:2.)

No opposition has been filed. Real Party in Interest has not produced any evidence creating a triable issue of material fact. The Court therefore finds that Petitioner has established all elements necessary to obtain forfeiture of the respondent property and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

The Court orders that Respondent United States Currency in the amount of $4,213.00 is forfeited to the State of California.

The currency shall be distributed by Petitioner in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11489.

The case management conference set for September 21, 2026, at 1:30 pm in Department 22 is VACATED.

The proposed order that was submitted in conjunction with the motion needs to be revised. The inclusion of a statement of dismissal is incorrect. The order should instead indicate that the Court is summarily granting the petition. Petitioner is directed to submit within five court days (1) a new proposed order and (2) a proposed formal judgment consistent with this ruling.

CV-26-001019 – CAPITAL ONE NA vs PERALES, KAREENA M – Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), Plaintiff moves to set aside the default judgment it obtained against Defendant in April 2026. Plaintiff states that after the judgment was obtained, new information came to its attention. After investigation, Plaintiff determined that it was in the interest of justice and fairness to have the judgment set aside.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion.

The Court on its own motion SETS a Court’s Motion to Dismiss for September 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling within five court days.

PR-22-000750 – ESTATE OF MAYHUE, WENDY D – Petitioner Stuart Jones’ 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 - CONTINUED to July 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to July 23, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.

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-22-004051 – KING, THOMAS vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED, in part, GRANTED, in part.

The court previously addressed the issue of the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s Opposition and reiterates its previous finding that the interests of justice do not favor the interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure 437c urged on the Court by Defendant that applies the 2025 statutory response deadlines to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed in 2024, and that Plaintiff’s opposition herein may be considered by the Court in the exercise of its broad discretion to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline on a motion for summary judgment.  (CRC 3.1300 (d); Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640).

The court finds that triable issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiffs cause of action for elder abuse as to decedent’s admission skin condition and the timing of decedent’s wound development, Defendant’s compliance with turning and repositioning protocols, as well as the adequacy of Defendant’s wound assessment and follow-up care and treatment. (Defendant’s Exhibits B, K and  M, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, B and D, Plaintiff’s UMFs 1-8, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27-28; and Plaintiff’s ASUMFs  1,5,6 -9,  12 , 13, 15, 21, 23-24 24,33, 35, 54-55, 58 , 62,  68 , 70, 72-73 , 81, 90-91. Triable issues of material fact also exist regarding decedent’s nutrition, weight loss, and wound healing while in Defendant’s facility. (Defendants USMFs 2, 10-13, 16, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 42).

In addition, triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant’s care and treatment of the decedent exceed medical negligence and met the standards for elder abuse and neglect. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.57; Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC, (2011)198 Cal.App.4th 396). 

Finally, triable issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff’s ability to establish the required recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice sufficient to support enhanced remedies under the  Elder Abuse Act

The court finds that Plaintiff’s UCL cause of action is derivative of the elder neglect allegations and fails as a matter of law.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Elder Abuse Claim and Enhanced Remedies is DENIED.

Motion for Summary Adjudication of UCL Claim is GRANTED.

Defendant's Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED

CV-25-003001 – BENNETT, DONALD vs RH ALUMINUM BOATS – a) Defendant Blueearth Marine, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, from Plaintiff Donald Bennett; Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney – GRANTED, unopposed; b) Defendant Blueearth Marine, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Donald Bennett; Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney – GRANTED, unopposed; c) Defendant Blueearth Marine, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Donald Bennett; Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney - GRANTED, unopposed.

a) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Donald Bennett failed to timely respond to Defendant Blueearth Marine’s properly propounded Requests for Production, Set One served on Plaintiff on October 29, 2025, entitling Defendant to bring the present motion and to the award of monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a) and (b)).

Any objections to said Requests for Production including those based on privilege and work product are accordingly waived. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2031.300( (b)).

Plaintiff shall accordingly serve Defendant with verified, objection-free code-compliant responses to said Requests for Production, Set One, and produce all responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession within ten days of the service of this order.

Monetary sanctions of $975 are hereby imposed against Plaintiff and his Counsel for Defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. Civ Proc. Code §§2031.300(c), 2023.010 (h); 2023.030(a); Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1348 (a); Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool L. Firm, Inc., (2024)101 Cal. App. 5th 902.

b) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Donald Bennett failed to timely respond to Defendant Blueearth Marine’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One served on Plaintiff on October 29, 2025, entitling Defendant to bring the present motion and to the award of monetary sanctions. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b).

Any objections to said Form Interrogatories including those based on privilege and work product are accordingly waived. Code of Civ. Proc., §2030.290((b).

Plaintiff shall accordingly serve Defendant with verified, objection-free code-compliant responses to said Form Interrogatories,  Set One, within ten days of the service of this order. Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 (a); Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool L. Firm, Inc., (2024)101 Cal. App. 5th 902.

Monetary sanctions of $975 are hereby imposed against Plaintiff and his Counsel for Defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.

c) GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Donald Bennett failed to timely respond to Defendant Blueearth Marine’s properly propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One served on Plaintiff on October 29, 2025, entitling Defendant to bring the present motion and to the award of monetary sanctions. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b).

Any objections to said Form Interrogatories including those based on privilege and work product are accordingly waived. Code of Civ. Proc., §2030.290((b).

Plaintiff shall accordingly serve Defendant with verified, objection-free code-compliant responses to said Form Interrogatories,  Set One, within ten days of this service of this order. Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1348 (a); Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool L. Firm, Inc., (2024)101 Cal. App. 5th 902.

Monetary sanctions of $350 are hereby imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel for Defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.

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***