Civil Tentative Rulings

July 24, 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-23-007620 – WRIGHT, ERIKA vs VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK LP – Defendant Valley Industrial Park LP’s Motion for Summary Adjudication – GRANTED.

Cross-Complainant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to adjudication of the issues presented herein in its favor. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) Based on the declaration of William Pinkley and the evidence presented thereby, Cross-Complainant has demonstrated that Cross-Defendant owes a contractual duty to defend and indemnify in connection with Plaintiff’s claims against Cross-Complainant herein. Specifically, the undisputed evidence establishes that the subject incident arose out of, involved, or occurred in connection with Cross-Defendant’s use and/or occupancy of the premises, as provided in the parties’ lease. (See, e.g., UMFs 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, 40.) 

The burden then shifts to Cross-Defendant to submit admissible evidence establishing the existence of material factual disputes preventing adjudication of the issues presented herein. The Court finds that Cross-Defendant has failed to meet that burden.

In that regard, the Court notes that the essence of Cross-Defendant’s purported dispute concerns the legal significance of the evidence as it relates to the application of the subject indemnity clause in the lease. However, the Court finds that Cross-Defendant’s primary cited authority, Morlin Asset Management LP v. Murachanian (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 184 is inapposite on these facts. In addition, while Cross-Defendant suggests the application of the exception for the lessor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, the evidence presented on those issues consists primarily of speculation and is insufficient to create a material factual dispute on that claim. (See, e.g., Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162–163.)

Cross-Defendant’s objections to evidence are OVERRULED.

PR-26-000222 – ESTATE OF RUIZ, LILA JENNIE – Petitioner Frank Martinez’s Motion to Strike Misleading, Irrelevant, False, and Prejudicial Allegations from Response and Objections to Petition of Frank Martinez for Letters of Administration - DENIED.

Petitioner Frank Martinez's Motion to Strike Misleading, Irrelevant, False, and Prejudicial Allegations from Respondent Francine McLean's Response and Objections to Petition for Letters of Administration is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

The challenged allegations concern Petitioner's alleged prior criminal conduct and are offered in support of respondent's contention that petitioner is not competent or suitable to serve as personal representative under Probate Code §§ 8402 and 8502. As such, the allegations bear on issues currently before the Court and are facially relevant.

Further, Petitioner has not established through competent evidence that the challenged allegations are false as a matter of law. Petitioner's declaration creates, at most, a factual dispute concerning the nature, disposition, and significance of the prior events. Such factual disputes are not appropriately resolved through a motion to strike.

The Court will determine, in connection with the competing petitions for appointment of a personal representative, what weight, if any, should be afforded to the challenged allegations and any evidence supporting or refuting them.

No order striking any portion of Respondent's Response and Objections will issue.

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-23-000865 – LEGRANDE, JULIAN vs PENINSULA PLASTICS RECYCLING INC – Compliance Hearing – DROPPED.

The Court notes the submission of the Settlement Administrator’s declaration demonstrating compliance with the terms of the subject settlement.  Of the Gross Settlement Amount of $292,500.00 Aggrieved Employees, Class Counsel, Class Representatives and Class Administrator have received their payments per said Settlement.  Payment has also been made to the LWDA per said Settlement. Uncashed checks totaling $10,411.65. will be transmitted to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel shall submit an amended judgment reflecting the unclaimed amount.

CV-24-002128 – HEARD, LATRISHA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues – DENIED, in part, GRANTED, in part.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s additional statement of material facts in dispute. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (b)(3) &(5); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350.

The court exercises it discretion not to deny Defendants’ motion based on this procedural deficiency. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c; Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank v. Bradley, (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 89).

The court finds that triable issues of material facts exist regarding Plaintiffs cause of action for elder abuse/neglect as to the adequacy of custodial care, Defendants provided to decedent, breach and causation. Particularly, in relation to decedent’s skin condition on admission, 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. (Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 5-56, Declaration of Dr Bressler, Declaration of Dr. Woelfel, Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 4, 16, 22, 24, 26, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42-45, 50, 52, 57, 59, 65-76; Declaration of Dr. Saba, Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts Nos 1-11, Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3-9, 14-17)

On the same bases, triable issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and wrongful death.

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

Summary adjudication is denied as to Issues One, Three, Four, Five Six and Seven and granted as to the punitive damages allegations (Issues Two and Eight). The extensive evidence of interventions in the record, with multiple wound consults, air mattress orders, the prescription of medication for the wounds, debridement etc, as against the lack of detailed compliance in the record serve to prevent the escalation of Plaintiff’s claims from neglect/negligence to recklessness and make punitive damages unavailable here.  

Defendant's Evidentiary Objections are overruled.  Defendants’ objections largely attack the weight, persuasiveness, or ultimate conclusions of Dr. Saba's opinions rather than their admissibility. Furthermore, medical reports are typically relied on by medical experts in these types of cases as did Defendants’ own experts Doctors Woelfel and Bressler.

CV-25-005894 – HUNTSMAN, ROBERT vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue [CCP 395,396b] – DENIED, without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate proof of service of the motion and supporting papers on Defendants. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (b).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby denied, without prejudice.

CV-25-006234 – RAZO, JUANA vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC – a) Plaintiff Juana Razo’s Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Request for Admission (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; b) Plaintiff Juana Razo’s Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 17.1 and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; c) Plaintiff Juana Razo’s Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC DBA Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion

The Court notes Defendant’s Counsel’s failure to engage in meet and confer contrary to the Court’s order of July 1, 2026, and notwithstanding Defendant’s prior claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court

intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Accordingly, parties are hereby once against ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040; 2017.010). Furthermore, argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that Counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

The Court wholly expects Defendant’s Counsel to fully engage in the ordered meet and confer, failing which the court will consider the issuance of sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel.

This matter is continued to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

The parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication no later than August 12, 2026.

b) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes Defendant’s Counsel’s failure to engage in meet and confer contrary to the Court’s order of July 1, 2026, and notwithstanding Defendant’s prior claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court

intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Accordingly, parties are hereby once against ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040; 2017.010). Furthermore, argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that Counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

The Court wholly expects Defendant’s Counsel to fully engage in the ordered meet and confer, failing which the court will consider the issuance of sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel.

This matter is continued to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

The parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication no later than August 12, 2026.

c) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court notes Defendant’s Counsel’s failure to engage in meet and confer contrary to the Court’s order of July 1, 2026, and notwithstanding Defendant’s prior claims of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer in good faith as well as Defendant’s multiple expressions of a desire to avoid motion practice and court

intervention in correspondence between Counsel attached as Exhibits in support of the motion.

Accordingly, parties are hereby once against ordered to engage in further meet and confer “either in person, by telephone or by videoconference” to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing.  ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.040; 2017.010). Furthermore,  argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that Counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

The Court wholly expects Defendant’s Counsel to fully engage in the ordered meet and confer, failing which the court will consider the issuance of sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel.

This matter is continued to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

The parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication no later than August 12, 2026.

CV-25-011611 – CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs PAGE, MATTHEW – Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint - OVERRULED in its entirety.

The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract and has adequately alleged ownership of the subject account. The Complaint is not uncertain within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b) or (f). Defendant's arguments regarding completeness of assignment documents, authentication, and admissibility of evidence concern matters of proof and do not establish a pleading defect. Venue is proper in Stanislaus County.

Plaintiff's failure to file opposition does not alter the Court's independent determination that the Complaint is legally sufficient.

Defendant shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within ten (10) days of service of notice of entry of this order. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).)

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***