Civil Tentative Rulings

September 01, 2026

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

CV-25-002651 - DAVIS, JONATHAN vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Amount of Reasonable Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses to be Paid by Defendant – GRANTED in the reduced amount of $18,846.11.

Plaintiff’s critique of the opposition’s failure to identify Plaintiff accurately is well-taken.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in the reduced amount of $18,846.11, which is comprised of $17,885 in attorney’s fees and $961.11 in costs. Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Plaintiff filed the instant action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act on March 21, 2025. After the parties settled on the merits, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 8, 2026, requesting $32,666.50 in attorney’s fees and $961.11 in costs, for a total award of $33,627.61.

“[T]he reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community.” (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1157.) Plaintiff’s exhibits attaching rulings from other Superior Courts are not availing as the Court may not consider them for any purpose. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 fn.2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Even if the Court could consider these, the use of state court cases without a survey showing rates awarded in comparable counties renders such information unhelpful to the Court.

The Court finds that four hours for replying to the instant motion is excessive and will include only two of the four requested hours in the lodestar calculation. The Court adopts General Motors’ recommendations for hourly amounts as consistent with the going rate in the county. Christine Morano is listed as a “paralegal” but appears to have been an attorney throughout this case; the entry is stricken.

This leaves:

Dillavon 18.9 hours at $500 per hour

Youssefi: 10.7 hours at $500 per hour

Jacobs 1.4 hours at $500 per hour

Paralegal: 15.9 hours at $150 per hour

Totalling: $17,885.

The Court finds the stated costs and expenses in the amount of $961.11 are reasonable given the nature of the case.

CV-25-003510 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs MARTINEZ, LOLO BANUELOS – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered: CCP 473(b) – DENIED with prejudice.

There is no proof of service of the motion on file, the motion is untimely, and the declaration does not show good cause. The Court lacks authority to grant the motion.

In addition, the motion is procedurally improper. The instant motion is Defendant’s second motion to set aside default and default judgment. Defendant’s prior May 14, 2026 motion to set aside default and default judgment was denied because no service of the motion was on file, the declaration did not show good cause, and the motion was untimely. Defendant did not seek leave to refile the same motion.

The Court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling and also of the Court’s July 7, 2026 ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5.)

CV-25-006057 - MORALES, RENE BERMUDEZ vs VARGAS, MACHUCA EMILIANO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by Publication - DENIED without prejudice.

The declaration is insufficient to determine if other addresses are associated with individual defendants. It asserts that the subject address is “the only address associated with all three defendants,” but this does not indicate that other addresses are associated with individual defendants and also does not indicate that other addresses were sought.

Plaintiffs have not established that they conducted an appropriate search for Defendants’ whereabouts or addresses. Reasonable diligence “denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney,” such as a number of attempts to learn defendant’s whereabouts or address by inquiry and/or investigation of public directories. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 338.)

Due diligence in attempting to serve at the address listed is shown, but the evidence before the Court does not indicate that there are not other known addresses for the defendants, nor what the reasoning behind the conclusion that the defendants reside at the address is.

                 

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

CV-26-007399 - LOUREIRO, DAVID J vs KEENSTAR AMERICA INVENSTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction – DENIED without prejudice.

There is no proof of service of the motion on file. Nor is there a proof of service of the summons and complaint on file.

“No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.) “A party requesting a preliminary injunction may give notice of the request to the opposing or responding party either by serving a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 or by obtaining and serving an order to show cause (OSC). An OSC must be used . . . if the party against whom the preliminary injunction is sought has not appeared in the action. If the responding party has not appeared, the OSC must be served in the same manner as a summons and complaint.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150.) “[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

PR-25-001101 – IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW – Petitioner’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Two, Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion on calendar that day.

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

CV-21-005589 - ROMAN, ERIC vs SUNOPTA GRAINS AND FOODS INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Based on the information provided in the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State’s goal of benefitting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement and the distribution of the settlement funds, including the amounts allocated to attorney’s fees and costs and administration costs, as set forth in the moving papers.  (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).)

However, the Court notes an error in the proposed order as to the calculation of the 75% allocation of net penalties to the LWDA. By the Court’s calculation, the correct amount in that regard should be reflected as $143,501.54.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a revised form of order reflecting the information herein.

CV-24-006196 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs MENDIOLA, BERTRAND – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained

in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.

 

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-006869 - CARRILLO, FERNANDO, Jr vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees- CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.  b) Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Tax Counsel’s Memorandum of Costs – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that counsel herein has substantial experience with these types of matters and is presumably well-acquainted with the law governing the determination of reasonable fees and expenses pursuant to the statute.  Nevertheless, these types of fee and cost disputes are commonplace and appear to reflect a default pattern of refusing to compromise in favor of “trying their luck” before the court, thus wasting judicial resources in the hopes of obtaining a ruling favoring their side.

The Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer as to such issues are undertaken in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by October 20, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The Court strongly encourages the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another. Should counsel for the parties be unable to reach a reasonable compromise of any of the issues presented by the instant motion, the Court may require personal appearances at the time of the continued hearing to further address the issues herein.

CV-26-001740 - ESPINOZA, FELIX ANTONIO SIFONTES vs NORCAL CHICKEN INC – Defendant Nor-Cal Chicken, INC.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Strike Class Claims – GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated the existence of an agreement to arbitrate which encompasses the claims at issue herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) 

Further, the Court further finds that the subject agreement contains a valid delegation clause granting the arbitrator the exclusive authority to determine the issues of  interpretation, applicability, and enforcement, which encompasses the unconscionability arguments raised by Plaintiff herein.(Aanderud v. Superior Court (Vivint Solar Developer, LLC) (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880.)

With regard to Plaintiff’s challenge to the delegation clause, the Court finds that he has demonstrated, at most, a slight degree of procedural unconscionability attendant with the manner in which the onboarding process was presented by the employer. However, the Court finds no substantive unconscionability in connection with the delegation clause herein. Therefore, Plaintiff’s challenge fails, and all remaining issues raised in the papers herein shall be submitted to the arbitrator.

All remaining proceedings are stayed pending completion of the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

CV-26-001848 - ADVANCED RADIOLOGY AND INTERVENTIONAL ASSOCIATES INC vs EOH ACQUISITION GROUP LLC – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss or Stay for Forum Non-Conveniens – GRANTED.

Although Plaintiff has presented evidence that Care Well transmitted radiology studies to ARIA, directed payments and communications to California, and maintained a contractual relationship with a California corporation, the controlling authorities establish that these factors are not sufficient to establish Defendant’s purposeful availment of the subject forum for purposes of specific jurisdiction. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556; Belmont Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 281.)

The record reflects that the contract was governed by New Jersey law, required New Jersey-licensed physicians, concerned treatment of patients located in New Jersey, and contained no requirement that services be performed from California. The evidence presented shows that Care Well received radiology services for the benefit of its New Jersey hospital operations and New Jersey patients. Plaintiff has not presented evidence showing that Care Well purposefully sought the benefits and protections of California law or otherwise created the type of substantial California connection discussed in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462.

In view of the Court’s findings, above, Defendant’s alternative argument based on forum non conveniens is MOOT.

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

CV-23-001227 - CARSON HYBRID STORAGE ENERGY LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT -

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint -HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-25-008030 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SOBERANES, MARIO FELIX - a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set NO. One as to Ramon Feliz Soberanes - GRANTED, unopposed.  b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Ramon Felix Soberanes- GRANTED, unopposed.  c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions as to Ramon Felix Soberanes - GRANTED, unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Ramon Felix Soberanes has failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One served on said Real Party in Interest on March 5, 2026, or at all without substantial justification. The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to responses to said discovery. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is hereby granted. Any objections by said Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived. Defendant is hereby ordered to provide verified, code compliant, objection free responses to said Form Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

b) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Ramon Felix Soberanes failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, served on said Real Party in Interest on March 5, 2026, or at all without substantial justification.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to inspect all the requested documents and things listed in Petitioner’s said Request for Production, Set One. Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a).

Any objections by Real Party in Interest to said discovery are hereby waived.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.  Said Real Party in interest is ordered to identify and produce all the requested documents and things therein stated without objection and to permit Petitioner's counsel to inspect and copy said documents and things within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a) and (b)).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

c) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest Ramon Felix Soberanes failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on said Real Party in Interest on March 3, 2025, or at all without substantial justification.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.

Therefore, any objection to said Requests for Admission, by said Real Party In Interest including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product are hereby waived and the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in said Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 (a).

Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-26-000806 - OLSON, ROBERT vs SANTIBANEZ, BEATRICE – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.