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 rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Defendant's Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding – HEARING REQUIRED.
Plaintiff is entitled to respond to the reply brief’s assertions. Given the nature of the opposition, the additional information in the reply brief appears relevant.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for additional briefing and intends to reset the hearing.
CV-26-002823 - COLE, KAYLA RENEE vs UHAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS INC - Defendant U-Haul Co. of California's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings –HEARING REQUIRED.
Both parties reference a First Amended Complaint which was rejected by the clerk’s office and the Court does not have access to. The Court views an infinite time arbitration agreement for all possible events as overbroad.
The Court needs the actual allegations, which it assumes were not in Santa Clara County.
CV-26-002989 - DEL RIO, JOSE LUIS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Defendant General Motors LLCs Motion for Compliance and Sanctions -HEARING REQUIRED.
Plaintiff is likely required to provide a declaration which pertains to the registration. I am surprised that this matter remains on calendar. Under “Meet and Confer Efforts,” Defendant offers no meet and confer efforts.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Ruben Vasquez in The Sum of $1560.00 – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed.
On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to requests for production and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1560.00.
"If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)
On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff served 11 requests for production of documents on Defendant, to which Defendant did not respond. On July 28, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for protective order to prohibit Plaintiff from propounding further discovery and to relieve Defendant from responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, but there is no opposition on file. Defendant states that he is in the process of securing an attorney.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve responses within 30 days. The Court declines to issue sanctions in this circumstance. The request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-005585 - DIAS, RYAN vs DIAS, MARCUS – a)Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Matthew Dias – GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Matthew Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Marcus Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; d) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Marcus Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; e) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Michele Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; f) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Michele Dias– GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The Court finds that Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 fails to comply with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.220 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve a verified further response to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Matthew Dias and his counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
b) The Court finds that Defendant’s responses to the subject discovery fail to comply with the provisions of CCP §§ 2031.220 and 2031.230 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Matthew Dias and his counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
c) The Court finds that Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 fails to comply with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.220 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve a verified further response to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Marcus Dias and his counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
d) The Court finds that Defendant’s responses to the subject discovery fail to comply with the provisions of CCP §§ 2031.220 and 2031.230 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Marcus Dias and his counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
e) The Court finds that Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 fails to comply with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.220 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve a verified further response to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Michele Dias and her counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
f) The Court finds that Defendant’s responses to the subject discovery fail to comply with the provisions of CCP §§ 2031.220, 2031.230 and 2031.240 et seq. Therefore, Defendant shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(c), 2023.010 et seq., 2023.030 et seq.)Therefore, the Court awards $485 in sanctions against Defendant Michele Dias and her counsel herein, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.
CV-25-009269 – EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO – Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court notes the lack of opposition and is inclined to SUSTAIN the demurrer without leave to amend.
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED with regard to the contents of the court’s file in the related criminal proceeding, CR23-8100.
Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, including those matters subject to judicial notice, the Court is inclined to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. Specifically, it appears that the Criminal Division’s finding of probable cause to support Plaintiff’s arrest on 8-6-23 bars his pursuit of a false arrest claim herein, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. (See, e.g. Greene v. Bank of America (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 922, 933–934.)
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants herein are based on the alleged failure to arrest Mr. Durazo on the date(s) in question, liability on that theory is precluded by the application of Gov. Code § 846.
Lastly, as the Court sees no potential for amendment to cure the defects identified herein, and Plaintiff has again failed to oppose the challenge to his pleading, the Court is inclined to DENY further leave to amend.
The Court will hear from the parties on these issues at the time of the hearing.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood 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***