Civil Tentative Rulings

Amended September 17, 2026

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

CV-25-001199 - ALMANZA, KRISTOPHER vs MODESTO ON ICE INC - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice

In support of its motion, Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint and the answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

The request for judicial notice is unnecessary as the Court probably need not make such a ruling to consider papers filed in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

Objections

With regard to Defendant’s objections to the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, it appears that most of the objections go to weight, not admissibility. With that stated, the Court SUSTAINS the objection to inclusion of Defendant’s insurance policy. Nonetheless, sustaining that objection does not salvage Moving Defendant’s motion.

Legal Standards

A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at p. 851.) A defendant meets their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party shows that “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that “a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

“Because of the drastic nature of the summary judgment procedure and the importance of safeguarding the adverse party's right to a trial, the moving party must make a strong showing. His affidavits are strictly construed and the opposing party's are liberally construed.” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1038.) All doubts as to whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment or adjudication. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.) Thus, evidence that is equivocal or from which conflicting inferences may be drawn is insufficient to meet the movant’s burden. (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 297.)

Discussion

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment argues that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars Plaintiff’s claim for negligence. “Generally, the participation in an active sport is governed by primary assumption of risk, and a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport. [Citation.]” (Staten v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1628, 1632–1633.) “Although a defendant owes no duty to protect against the risks inherent in a sport, the defendant generally owes a duty not to increase the risks of the activity beyond the risks inherent in the sport. [Citation.]” (Id., 1633.)

A motion for summary judgment is framed by the pleadings. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381; Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.) 

Here, there are two events that give rise to the pleading: (1) the state of the ice; and (2) Defendant’s employees’ alleged failure to timely offer aid (see SAC ¶¶ 18, 22, 44). The only fact that Moving Defendant lists for the latter issue is SUF No. 18: “Plaintiff claims in discovery and the operative complaint after he fell employees of Modesto On Ice, Inc. refused to call him an ambulance but at his deposition he testified and clarified they did not refuse to call him an ambulance.” Plaintiff disputes this characterization. (See Resp. Sep. Stmt., SUF No. 18; AMF Nos. 6-8.)

As to the state of the ice, Plaintiff provides an expert declaration from John Spengler. The Spengler declaration asserts an expertise in sports safety generally and cites to what he asserts are generally accepted norms. While the declaration in places appears to use a standard inconsistent with assumption of the risk rules, it does assert that the alleged degree of standing water was an abnormal condition which presented an increased risk to a skater.

Plaintiff’s other issue was with the timing of the offer to render aid. Specifically, in his deposition, Plaintiff stated that immediately after his injury, he had to partially crawl off the ice; no employees helped him. Then two employees came up to him. He asked for paramedics or a wheelchair. They stated that they did not have either available and instead questioned him regarding the accident. Only after gaining material information from him regarding the accident did they offer to call 911, by which time, Plaintiff had determined that it would be faster to have his mother (who was present at the rink) drive him to the hospital.

Plaintiff’s assertion of damages from the failure to provide timely aid is inferential, but does appear to exist.

Because the separate statement does not adequately refute the issue of failing to provide timely aid, Moving Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden of proof.

CV-25-007782 - CORTES, ALEXANDRA MEZA vs SINGH, GURWANT - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Alexandra Meza Cortes - DENIED without prejudice.

The declaration indicates that Plaintiff was served by mail but there is no proof of service on file. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300.)

On August 10, 2026, Attorney Valero filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Cortes, including a declaration and proposed order. There is no opposition is on file. A similar motion to be relieved as counsel was previously filed on June 18, 2026, and was denied without prejudice for procedural reasons on August 27, 2026.

CV-26-007266 - VALLIJO, MARYANN vs AMERICAN ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC - Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs compliance with Rule of Court 3.300 in all cases and to determine whether this is the correct venue.

On September 4, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of related case in the Vallijo matter, identifying 11 related cases. The proof of service indicates service on Plaintiff Vallijo only. “The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300.)

On August 14, 2026, Plaintiff Vallijo along with the plaintiff in a related action (Williams v. Madera Community Hospital, et al., Case No. CV-26-007756), filed a motion to consolidate requesting (1) consolidation of their two cases under the first-filed Vallijo matter, (2) appointment of certain interim co-lead counsel, and (3) an order entering a proposed case schedule setting forth certain pleading deadlines.

On September 3, 2026, Defendants filed a response. The response identified a third case in this Court for consolidation—Lisa Medina v. American Advanced Management, Inc. d/b/a Madera Community Hospital, Case No. CV-26-008023—and also identified nine additional related actions currently pending in Madera County Superior Court. Defendants request that any Court order regarding consolidation preserve Defendants’ rights to seek transfer of the three actions in this Court to Madera County and/or coordination of all twelve actions.

Once it is able to, the Court intends to informally confer with Madera County case judges.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 22***

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

CV-24-000957 - ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-24-008657 - WALLACE, KEVIN ALAN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 for IN-PERSON APPEARANCES.

The Court finds the parties’ Joint Status Statement insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Court’s order requiring good faith meet and confer efforts on the issues presented by this motion. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, and counsel shall appear in person at the time of the continued hearing and shall be prepared to engage in further efforts to reach a reasonable compromise of the issues herein at that time. In the event the parties are able to reach an informal resolution of the issues prior to the continued hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly notify the court and the hearing will be vacated.

CV-26-000979 - CASTRO, DAVID vs GOMEZ, PATRICIO CASTRO - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Amended Verified Answer - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 22, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

CV-26-002214 - SIZUELA, GAIL vs MACYS INC - Plaintiff Gail Louise Sizuela's Motion for First Preference - GRANTED, and HEARING REQUIRED to select trial date.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for preferential trial setting, in light of her advanced age and health concerns. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(a).) Therefore, counsel are directed to appear with their trial calendars and be prepared to select a trial date within 120 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(f).)

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

CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Person Most Knowledgeable - GRANTED, per the parties’ stipulation.

Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Status Statement filed with the Court on September 10, 2026, and the stipulations therein contained, the Court hereby orders that the following witnesses shall be deposed by Plaintiff with Defendant to provide dates for said depositions no later than September 22, 2026:

A. City of Modesto PMQ re Signage and lane markings (strippage) on Coffee Road, the intersection and Scenic property to reflect all signs from the time of their installation, including installation, and replacement of signage following the collisions in 2021, 2022 and 2023 (subject collision):

I. Toby Wells - PMQ COM Engineering

2. Richard Mendoza or John Sphar COM PMQ Transportation

B. Modesto Police Department Witnesses of Subject Collision

3. MPD Ryan Olson

4. MPD Ivan Pimmentel

5. MPD Ryan Curley – (Counsel for City of Modesto Swingle to confirm availability

6. MPD J. Contreras – (Counsel for City of Modesto to confirm availability

7. MPD Octavio Cisneros – (Counsel for City of Modest to confirm availability

8. MPD Geoffrey Crowley

9. MPD Kyle Johnson

10. MPD Gillian Schuller

C. City of Modesto - Prior and Subject Collision Related Signage Replacement

11. Alex Ingwerson - City of Modesto Dept. of Transportation

12. Christopher Cummings - City of Modesto Dept. of Transportation

D. Modesto Police Department - Investigation of Prior Collisions in 2021 and 2022

13. MPD Ofer. Jon McQueary - Star 13257 (investigated 2021 collision)

14. MPD Ofer. Ryan Sellers - Star 13017 (investigated 2022 collision))

E. Lay Witnesses

15. Michelle Ciraulo

16. Amber Vierra (09/14/2026)

17. Ruben Escobar (09/10/2026)

18. Ryan Lebbert (09/10/2026)

F. Defendants Scenic Development, Inc. & Thousand Oaks Executive Center, LLC LPM Services,Inc. dba Liberty Property Management intend to depose the (19) PMK of Sutter Health Memorial Medical Center, Clinical Laboratory, with a deposition date of either October 6 or 13, 2026.

G. Defendant City of Modesto intends to depose (20) Kaitlyn Ortiz-Acho and (21) MariaGuadalupe Ortiz-Acho.

Any records request related to any of the depositions shall require the production of the requested documents no later than three (3) court days prior to the scheduled deposition.

CV-24-002223 - STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs MENDOZA, MARCO ANTONIO - Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Dismissal (C.C.P. 473(B)) - GRANTED, unopposed.

Based on the timely filing of Plaintiff’s motion supported by an attorney declaration of fault and a copy of the Proposed Default Packet, good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 (b); Austin v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 918; Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 67; Carmel Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009), 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009).

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court’s order of May 7, 2026, dismissing this matter without prejudice is hereby vacated and set aside. This matter is accordingly restored to the Courts calendar. A Case Management Conference is set for February 8, 2027.

Plaintiff shall file its default packet within seven (7) days of the date of issuance of this order. 

CV-24-007199 - LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC vs MUNOZ, JOSE S - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Court's Dismissal and Reinstate Action - GRANTED, unopposed.

Based on the timely filing of Plaintiff’s motion supported by their attorney declaration of fault, good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 (b); Austin v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 918; Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 67; Carmel Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009), 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009).

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly GRANTED.

The Court’s order of May ,23 2026, dismissing this matter without prejudice is hereby vacated and set aside. This matter is accordingly restored to the Courts calendar.

Plaintiff shall file said stipulations within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order. 

CV-25-003643 - MEDLEY, MADELINE JADE vs DESIGNED RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS INC - Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval - GRANTED.

The Court finds the proposed settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and within the range of possible approval. The settlement appears to be the product of arm's-length negotiations and meaningful investigation and warrants dissemination of notice to the settlement classes, subject to final review and approval.

For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies:

Settlement Class: All residents of the United States whose Personal Information was potentially accessible during the Data Incident.

California Subclass: Members of the Settlement Class who were residents of California as of January 22, 2024.

The Court preliminarily appoints:

• Madeline Jade Medley, Jamie Biers, Robert Herrera, Anita Howard, Stephen Chapman, Josh Chapa, Roz Saedi, Lindsay Woodall, Mohamed Djabi, Daniel Wright, and Joseph Earl Draper as Settlement Class Representatives;
• Laura Van Note, Jason Wucetich, and Catherine Ybarra as Lead Settlement Class Counsel; and
• Epiq Systems, Inc. as Settlement Administrator. The proposed notice plan and forms of notice are approved.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

10-23-26	Class Administrator shall send the Notice to the Class.
12-18-26	Deadline for Class Members to Object or Opt Out of the Settlement
12-28-26	Claims Deadline
2-2-27	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator
2-26-27	Final Approval Hearing

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for February 26, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing. 

The Court reserves final determination regarding the fairness of the settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, service awards, and all objections until the Final Approval Hearing.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-26-000530 - US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs BONETA, JUAN - Defendant’s Motion for Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted - HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000862 - MARTINEZ, GEORGE vs PATLAN, JESSICA - Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons - HEARING REQUIRED.