Civil Tentative Rulings

June 24, 2026

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

CV-25-002065 - NWP INDUSTRIES LP vs SCHAAF, EARL JOHN VANDER - Plaintiff NWP Industries, L.P.'s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and Imposing Sanctions in the Amount of $2,701.95 – DENIED.

The Court does not have authority to grant the request given that a response was provided. Even assuming the responses are deficient – which they appear to be – deeming facts admitted is outside the scope of the court’s power. (See, for instance, Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5^th 898.)

NWP cites to no authority which supports an alternative reading, probably because none exists.

CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB – a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to be heard concurrently with the discovery motions set on that date. b) Defendant's Motion Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set No. One - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to June 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to be heard concurrently with the discovery motions set on that date.

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

CV-25-001000 - PUENTES, JARED vs CROSKREY, PAUL - Defendant and Cross-Complainant Paul Croskrey's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Counsel in the Amount of $4,632 – DENIED.

Defendant submitted a motion to compel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 on May 26, 2026. Plaintiff opposed and served supplemental responses concurrently with its opposition papers. Defendant replied.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010.) “A party may propound to another party . . .[t]hirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030.)

A motion to compel “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300.)

Here, the motion is procedurally defective. There was no attempt to meet and confer either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 was the delivery of a letter sent as an attachment to an email on May 13, 2026. A letter sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature’s specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication—beyond written exchanges—are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff did not respond to moving party’s request to meet and confer. Parties should not receive a windfall for failing to respond to a moving party and/or failing to meet and confer. The Court finds the circumstances here make the imposition of sanctions unjust and declines to issue them.

PR-25-001101 – IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motions on calendar that day.

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

CV-21-006265 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs ROBERSON, PAMELA J – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Based on the moving papers, the declarations of counsel and Mr. Cromwell and the attached evidence, and the Court’s order deeming matters admitted on 5-23-24, as well as the lack of opposition hereto, the Court finds that the Petitioner, as the moving party, has demonstrated fulfillment of the statutory requirements for forfeiture of the subject funds and is entitled to judgment herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1); Health & Saf. Code §§ 11470(f), 11488.4, and 11488.5, et seq.) In addition, Petitioner has established that Ms. Roberson has no interest in the subject funds and no legal basis upon which to assert a claim herein. (Health & Saf. Code § 11488(g).)

CV-24-002516 - HERNANDEZ, ESTEVON MACIEL vs ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION & METAL LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

7-9-26                    Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator

7-23-26                  Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.

9-8-26                    Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds

10-20-26               Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval

However, the Court has concerns with regard to the language included in the settlement agreement regarding the scope of claims released by the class.  Specifically, the Court questions the broad inclusion of any and all potential claims that “could have been” asserted in the action and whether the scope of the release is sufficiently tethered to the facts at issue in this action to prevent the class members’ unintended release of unrelated and/or unforeseen claims.  Consequently, the Court instructs counsel to confer with the goal of addressing this issue, potentially by amendment to clarify the language, and to present the Court with additional information in this regard at the time of the final approval hearing.  The parties are strongly cautioned that the Court will be reluctant to grant final approval if this issue is not satisfactorily addressed.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for November 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-25-006820 - HOWARD, JANICE vs GARDEN EAST APARTMENTS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Order Substituting Successor in Interest Danny Howard for Deceased Plaintiff – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court notes a discrepancy in the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, in that it incorrectly asks the court to conclude that Mr. Howard is the decedent’s personal representative. Counsel shall submit a revised form of order which correctly reflects Mr. Howard’s status as the deceased plaintiff’s successor-in-interest herein.

CV-25-006991 - VELEZ, PEDRO vs SILVA INJURY LAW - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Second Amended Complaint - DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s pleadings, including the instant motion, consistently violate the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.108 with regard to the formatting of papers submitted to the Court. Plaintiff is reminded that he is not entitled to special consideration based on his self-represented status and is responsible for following the rules of procedure in the same manner as an attorney practicing before this Court. (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 208.)

In addition, while the Court notes that Plaintiff submitted his proposed “corrected” pleading to the Court as a separate document on 5-5-26, it is not clear whether such document was provided to defense counsel in advance of the instant hearing, as the proof of service contained therein does not meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 1013b.

Lastly, with regard to the instant motion, the Court finds that the moving papers fail to meet the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, in that Plaintiff fails to identify by page, paragraph and line number any additions/deletions in the proposed amended pleading from the previous version of the complaint and fails to demonstrate why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the proposed amendment were discovered, and the reasons why the request was not made earlier. 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***

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***