Civil Tentative Rulings

May 29, 2026

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

CV-24-006292 – RICHARDSON, CHELSEY vs TELECARE CORPORATION – Final Approval – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has some questions for the parties, including questions regarding the proposed PAGA split. See Labor Code section 2699 as amended in 2024.

CV-25-008466 – WRIGHT, CALVIN vs KHUU, JOHN – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint – SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part. b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations from the First Amended Complaint – DENIED as MOOT.

a) Demurrer

For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part.

Legal Standards

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The complaint must be construed liberally, drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (See Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517, as modified (Feb. 28, 2001).). Even improbable facts are accepted as true on demurrer. (See Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, 104–105, disapproved of on inapposite grounds by Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1106.).

Discussion

        Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Causes of Action

The allegations in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) are sufficient to support the negligence and breach of duty causes of action. Previously, the Court debated whether to sustain or overrule the demurrer to these claims. With the expanded underlying allegations, the pleading of these causes of action now survives demurrer.

Plaintiff now alleges an expanded historical background asserting that the development has been troubled since at least 2008. (FAC ¶ 20.) Plaintiff alleges that since 2019, the Western Hills Water District (“WHWD”) has run a monthly operational shortfall of between $150,000 to $200,000. (FAC ¶ 21.) Plaintif further alleges that the WHWD has been unable to pay Kern County basic water charges. (Id.) “In December 2020, residents of Diablo Grande took control of WHWD. By August 2023, WHWD foreclosed on properties due to both World International and angel investor Angel Crossing's failure to pay special taxes.” (Id.)

The reasonable inference from the allegations (which must be drawn in the Plaintiff’s favor on demurrer) is that any competent realtor would have been aware that Diablo Grande was a troubled development and would have warned his or her client about these issues. Plaintiff bought his house in September 2023; the WHWD foreclosures occurred a month before his purchase and likely during the time when Plaintiff was actively looking for a home.

         Negligent Misrepresentation

Moving Defendants group the third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and fourth cause of action for fraud (concealment) together in arguing that the causes of action still lack specificity. (See Mem., at pp. 11-12.) Plaintiff contends that negligent misrepresentation is subject to a less stringent pleading standard but cites no authority in support of this proposition. (See Opp., at p. 5.)

“The elements of negligent misrepresentation are ‘(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another's reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.’ [Citation.] While there is some conflict in the case law discussing the precise degree of particularity required in the pleading of a claim for negligent misrepresentation, there is a consensus that the causal elements, particularly the allegations of reliance, must be specifically pleaded. [Citations.]” (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50 [emphasis added].)

The particularity requirement “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [emphasis in original].)

Regarding the third cause of action, the FAC contends:

        “53. During the transaction and prior to close of escrow, Defendants represented to Plaintiff, expressly
         and/or by providing misleadingly incomplete advice and information, that Plaintiff could proceed with
         the purchase without disclosure of material adverse facts regarding water service and community
         amenities thereby implying no such material adverse facts existed or warranted disclosure.

         “54. Those representations were false or misleading because Defendants omitted material facts that
         rendered their advice and information misleading, including the water availability issues and amenity
         closure/unavailability alleged herein.

         “55. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for their representations and omissions.

         “56. Plaintiff reasonably relied and suffered damages according to proof.”

The “how,” “where,” and “by what means” still seem to be missing. Furthermore, the “what” is vague.

Regarding the “what,” Plaintiff is alleging “express representations and/or misleadingly incomplete advice.” But Plaintiff was present for these interactions and should be able to assert what express misrepresentations the realtor made or what advice and information she provided that was “misleadingly incomplete.” Furthermore, it is not clear from the allegations whether Plaintiff is referring to misrepresentations or incomplete information regarding the issue of water service in general or the issue of the available amenities.

For the foregoing reasons, the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation is still insufficient.

         Fraud (Concealment)

The fourth cause of action alleges as follows:

         “59. Defendants concealed and suppressed material facts, including:
         a. serious water service and water availability issues affecting the Property/community, including
          delinquent obligations, shut-off risk, and substantial rate increases; and
         b. the closure/unavailability of the clubhouse and/or public swimming pool.

         “60. Defendants had a duty to disclose because Defendants were Plaintiff's fiduciaries and agents, had
         superior access to material information, knew Plaintiff was relying on them, and their partial advice and
         information without full disclosure was misleading.

         “61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants intentionally concealed these
         material facts to induce Plaintiff to proceed and close escrow.

         “62. Plaintiff reasonably relied and would not have purchased, or would have paid less, had Plaintiff
         known the concealed facts.

         “63. Plaintiff suffered damages according to proof.”

Some of the classic particularity factors for the fraud cause of action as set forth in Lazar, supra, are still missing.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff may be able to state viable causes of action. The Court therefore grants one last opportunity to amend. Amended complaint to be filed in 10 days.

b) Motion to Strike

The motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT. However, the Court also notes that the motion is procedurally defective; the motion itself fails to specify the portions of the pleading at issue.

CV-26-004269 – BETHEL, KENNETH vs NEW CENTURY CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING INC – Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Release and Expungement of Mechanic’s Lien and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs – HEARING REQUIRED.

A hearing is required on this matter. Under the statutory procedure governing petitions to release property from an expired mechanic’s lien, the petition and compliance with the hearing and service requirements are deemed controverted, and Petitioners bear the burden of producing evidence on those matters. (See Civ. Code, § 8488(a).)

No opposition is showing in the court file. Therefore, should Petitioners meet their initial burden of production, the Court is inclined to GRANT the petition.

Request for Judicial Notice

The unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Pursuant to Civil Code § 8488(c), if Petitioners prevail, they are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Here, Petitioners have requested $2,532.50. This amount comprises $1,972.50 in fees and costs including court filing fees of $435.00; online processing and service fees of at least $30.00; and County Recorder recording fees estimated at $95.00. The Court will discuss this request with the parties at the hearing.

Proposed Order

If the Court grants the petition, Petitioners shall be expected to submit a proposed order that conforms to the Court’s ruling and that contains all the information required by Civil Code § 8490(a) within five court days.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-24-008187 – GUILLEN, CLAUDIA vs BELMARE SENIOR LIVING LLC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and to have Requests Nos. 4, 6, 20, 24-33 Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC; Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that additional further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents were served on 5-14-26, and Defendant indicates willingness to continue to meet and confer with regard to additional further responses to the Requests for Admissions. Therefore, the Court believes the potential exists for the parties to resolve and/or narrow the disputes herein if additional meet and confer attempts are made in good faith. The hearings are continued for this purpose.

The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement by June 23, 2026, describing their further efforts to resolve the issues and briefly stating their respective positions on any items remaining in dispute.

Lastly, the Court reminds counsel that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) The Court believes that many, if not all, of the disputes herein are amenable to informal resolution, and the parties are expected to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

CV-25-012169 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs AZEVEDO, MANUEL J – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a  103,180 sq. ft. fee acquisition from a portion of the subject property located at 342 North Hart Road, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California,  County Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-039-014 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West  Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.

The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $129,200.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within  (30) days of service of this Order.

Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f).  

If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.

CV-26-001432 – CARLOS, JUAN vs TEEPLES PLUMBING & DRILLING INC – Defendant Teeples Plumbing & Drilling, Inc’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

CV-25-000613 – LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III – a) Defendant’s Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. b) Defendant’s Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. c) Defendant’s Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. d) Defendant’s Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-d) The Court notes that Plaintiff is now self-represented, due to the Court’s order granting her counsel’s motion to withdraw on 4-15-26. Therefore, the Court believes that defense counsel should provide the outstanding discovery requests to Plaintiff directly to allow her an opportunity to respond before the Court rules on the instant motions. The hearings are CONTINUED, as above, for this purpose, and defense counsel shall serve the outstanding requests on Plaintiff by June 5, 2026, with corresponding proof of service of the same to be filed herein.

Defense counsel shall also promptly serve notice of the continued hearing dates for the instant motions on Plaintiff.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case 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***