Civil Tentative Rulings

August 6, 2026

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

CV-23-002864 – GUTIERREZ, WENDY MARILYN QUINTERO vs MERCADO, JORGE – a) Defendants Jorge Mercado and Josephine Mercado's Motion for Imposition of Discovery and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or their Counsel- GRANTED in part. b) Defendants Jorge Mercado and Josephine Mercado's Motion for Imposition of Discovery and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or their Counsel - GRANTED in part.

a-b) The pleadings in this matter are not uniformly helpful. Defendants argue about an expert disclosure issue which does not involve them and appears to be used as character evidence. This does not advance the issue.

Plaintiff spends much of her briefing on the following points:

1.The Court’s initial decision was wrong and should be reversed.

2.Defendants have repeatedly lied.

3.New defense counsel is different than prior defense counsel and is bad at her job.

           None of these points assist the Court.

                On July 9, 2026, the Court ordered further responses to 14 special interrogatories noting that answers appeared to be evasive, incomplete, and that citations to the Complaint were insufficient. On July 20, 2026, Plaintiffs provided a response that they had no further information.

                The Court intends to limit issues raised at trial as to the information provided in response to the interrogatories. Plaintiffs imply that they have information developed in discovery as to which of the items in Special Interrogatory 1 that the Mercados knew or should have known about at the time of the sale but do not provide it.

The Court finds as follows on whether items will be allowed or disallowed based on the initial disclosure to those items undisclosed by any defendant:

Items 1 and 2: Allowed: Cracks in foundation.

Item 3: Allowed: Roofing of structure, permitting on roofing. Disallowed: “Electrical,” as the lack of specificity is fatal. “May be too close to property line,” as this is equivocal and does not articulate the safety issues.

Item 4: Allowed: Gas leaks, safety device, heat changer cracks in HVAC system.

Item 5: Disallowed in full. The defect which caused any leak and where that leak came from is unstated.

Item 6: Allowed: Shower leak.

Item 7: Disallowed in full. No description of the damage or the nature of the impropriety in construction.

Item 8: Allowed: Improper waterproofing behind shower walls. Disallowed: All else, as it appears conjectural.

Item 9: Allowed: Leaky gutters.

Item 10: Disallowed in full. “Inadequate,” is insufficient.

The Court addresses here only the issues in the motion.  The Court treats this effectively as a motion in limine and declines to issue further monetary sanctions, though I seriously considered otherwise.

CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC –  a)Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Ulysses Aguilar’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; d) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED, and unopposed; e) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; f) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; g) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; h) Defendant American Contractors Motion for Leave to Withdraw or Amend Admissions (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300) – GRANTED with conditions.

a) The Court finds that Defendant Ulysses Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Ulysses Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

b) The Court finds that Defendant Enrique Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Enrique Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

c) The Court finds that Defendant Enrique Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Se One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Enrique Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

d) The Court finds that Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc., has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc., payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

e) The Court finds that Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Se One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

f) The parties shall appear to inform the Court of the status of the promised responses and to address the issue of sanctions.

g) The parties shall appear to inform the Court of the status of the promised responses and to address the issue of sanctions.

h) Plaintiff correctly observes that there was no proposed response to the RFA’s and ACIC’s “prompt commitment to cure,” has not included any showing of excusable neglect by the attorney and ACIC has not actually made efforts to cure. Nonetheless, under New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, the Court must affirmatively find that ACIC’s conduct was inexcusable, which under these circumstances the Court cannot do. Further Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.300 controls.

On the other hand, ACIC’s view of “prompt” and the Court’s differ. This motion is granted conditionally under the following terms:

1. Responses shall be provided by 4 p.m. August 13, 2026.

2. ACIC shall pay $720 to Plaintiff’s counsel for a portion of the fees and costs for this motion.

CV-26-000621 - HOGGATT, STEVEN vs BAABAD, AHMED – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The effective date of the order shall be delayed until submission of proof of service of the signed order on the client. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)

In addition, the Court notes errors in the proposed order submitted by counsel. The proposed order appears to erroneously assert that the client was personally served with the papers herein, which is not supported by counsel’s declaration or proof of service. In addition, the date of the next proceeding reflects an outdated Case Management Conference.  Counsel shall correct these and submit a revised form of proposed order for the Court’s signature.

CV-26-004871 - THOMAS, SHAN VALENCIA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE - Petitioner's Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Ordering Compliance with the California Public Records Act – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service fails to demonstrate compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50 for service of process on a public entity.

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

CV-24-008419 - GUTIERREZ, ROBERTO vs NINO, ARTURO - Plaintiffs Roberto and Bertha Gutierrez's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED to August 13, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The hearing is continued on the Court's own motion for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to August 13, 2026, at 8:30 am 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, and unopposed.

On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be deemed admitted. There is no opposition on file.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff served 11 requests for admission 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 nor is there any filing indicating that Defendant served a substantially compliant proposed response to the requests.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS the request for order for monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 against Defendant in conjunction with the instant motion. Plaintiff is to pay the sanctions to the LAW OFFICES OF BART BARRINGER. Plaintiff to submit proposed order within 5 court days that conforms to this ruling.

CV-26-003505 -TOVAR, MARK A vs FCA US LLC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 871.26(B) – GRANTED.

Parties to note: If any party would like to request a hearing on these matters, please note that the Court will hold oral arguments regarding these motions on August 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Defendant filed the instant motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to provide code-compliant initial disclosures as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivisions (b), (f), and (g). Plaintiff served initial disclosures but Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s initial disclosures are deficient.

“Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26(b).) Subdivision (f) requires the plaintiff to provide documents for enumerated categories and subdivision (g) requires the plaintiff to provide information.

Here, Plaintiff’s responses are deficient. For example, Plaintiff is required to provide the sales or lease agreement, a copy of current registration, and certain financial information, but Plaintiff has not done so. As another example, Plaintiff is required to provide information concerning accidents and aftermarket modifications, but Plaintiff has not provided the information and instead Plaintiff’s response states that Plaintiff is searching for documents and/or information.

The motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendant submitted in connection with its motion.

PR-25-000725 - IN THE MATTER OF MOSS 2001 REVOCABLE TRUST - Trustee Aaron Moss Notice of Demurrer to Petition -– OVERRULED.

Parties to note: If any party would like to request a hearing on this matter, please note that the Court will hold oral arguments concerning the demurrer on August 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence, contents, and filing dates of the Court's March 24, 2026 minute order and Respondent's April 10, 2026 demurrer.

Respondent’s demurrer to the Petition for an Order to Recover Real Property Belonging to the Trust and Request for Double Damages and Attorney's Fees is OVERRULED for the reasons set forth below.

Parties to note: If any party would like to request a hearing on this matter, please note that the Court will hold oral arguments concerning the demurrer on August 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Governing Standards

"A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint." (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) In ruling on a demurrer, the Court treats all properly pleaded material facts as admitted, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. The Court may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The pleading must be construed liberally and "with a view to substantial justice between the parties." (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) A demurrer must be based upon matters appearing on the face of the pleading, exhibits attached to the pleading, or matters properly judicially noticed.

If a pleading states a cause of action under any legal theory, it is good against a general demurrer. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38; Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) Further, a plaintiff need only plead ultimate facts sufficient to state a claim and need not plead every evidentiary fact that may ultimately support recovery.

A. Timeliness

Petitioner argues the demurrer is untimely under Probate Code section 1043 and Goebner v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1105 because it was filed after the petition's initial hearing date. Respondent contends the Court's March 24, 2026 order established a May 12, 2026 deadline for "any objection or other pleading" and that the demurrer was filed on April 10, 2026.

The Court agrees with Respondent. The March 24, 2026 minute order expressly continued the matter to allow objections to be filed and directed that "[a]ny objection or other pleading" be filed and served no later than May 12, 2026. Respondent filed the demurrer approximately one month before that deadline. Accordingly, the Court finds the demurrer timely.

B. Probate Code § 19402

Respondent argues the petition fails to state facts sufficient to support any claim predicated on Probate Code § 19402 because that statute applies only to post-death trust distributions, whereas the petition alleges a transfer occurring during Georgianna Moss's lifetime in 2013.

The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this ground. The petition alleges that the Survivor's Trust executed a promissory note in favor of the Irrevocable Trust, that the obligation became due after Georgianna Moss's death, that the Survivor's Trust lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the obligation, that Aaron Moss received the property transferred from the Survivor's Trust, and that Aaron may be liable individually for obligations arising from those transactions.

Whether Petitioner's legal theory under Probate Code § 19402 ultimately succeeds presents a substantive legal issue that cannot be resolved solely from the face of the petition. At this stage, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the petition affirmatively negates all possible theories of liability. The demurrer is therefore overruled as to this ground.

C. Probate Code § 850

Respondent argues the petition fails to state a claim under Probate Code § 850 because the petition alleges that the Irrevocable Trust exchanged its one-third ownership interest in the property for a promissory note and therefore no longer owned the property. Respondent contends the trust's asset is the note, not the real property.

The Court is not persuaded that the petition is defective as a matter of law. The petition alleges that the note remains unpaid, that Aaron Moss presently holds property allegedly traceable to the transaction, that Aaron occupies fiduciary roles creating alleged conflicts of interest, and that the Irrevocable Trust is entitled to recover either the property interest or the value represented by the note.

The Court must liberally construe the petition and accept properly pleaded factual allegations as true. Under that standard, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner can prove no set of facts supporting relief under Probate Code § 850. To the extent Respondent disputes Petitioner's characterization of the legal effect of the 2013 transactions, that dispute is more appropriately resolved on a developed factual record rather than by demurrer.

D. Probate Code § 859

Respondent argues the petition fails to state facts sufficient to support double damages and attorney's fees under Probate Code § 859 because the petition's allegations of concealment concern the promissory note while the requested penalty is based on the value of the real property.

The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this ground. The petition alleges that Aaron Moss denied knowledge of the promissory note, later produced it, refused to pursue collection of the obligation, and wrongfully retained property or value allegedly belonging to the Irrevocable Trust. The petition further alleges that such conduct was wrongful and undertaken in bad faith.

Whether those allegations ultimately establish bad-faith wrongful taking, concealment, or disposition within the meaning of Probate Code section 859 presents factual and legal questions that cannot be resolved on demurrer. At this stage, the Court concludes the petition adequately pleads ultimate facts supporting the requested statutory remedy. (See C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

E. Alleged Inconsistency of Petitioner's Theories

Respondent argues the petition is defective because it allegedly treats the 2013 transaction as both valid and invalid.

The Court disagrees. Alternative and even inconsistent theories may be pleaded. More importantly, if the petition states a claim under any legal theory, the pleading survives demurrer. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 38.)

The petition clearly identifies the challenged transactions, the promissory note, the alleged failure to pay the obligation, the claimed conflict of interest, and the statutory grounds for relief. The Court therefore finds the petition sufficiently apprises Respondent of the nature of the claims asserted.

F. Uncertainty

The Court notes that Respondent listed Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e), failure to state sufficient facts, as the sole ground for demurrer. However, to the extent Respondent's motion may be construed as arguing uncertainty, the Court finds no basis for upholding that position. A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed and should be sustained only where a pleading is so unintelligible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (See Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 615.)

The record demonstrates that Respondent was able to respond in detail to the petition, filing a verified objection admitting or denying virtually every substantive allegation and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The petition therefore cannot reasonably be characterized as unintelligible or incapable of response.

Conclusion

As Respondent has already filed substantive objections, if he wishes to amend his response, he is required to do so by stipulation or by way of a motion for leave to amend.

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:

***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:

 

UD- 26-000413 - BANSAL, JANAK vs GARCIA, JOE R -Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.