Civil Tentative Rulings

September 4, 2026

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

CV-25-009819 - ROSSBERG, JAMIE vs WATERFORD AUTO REPAIR - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Set Aside Order of Dismissal, and Restore Action to Court's Active Trial Calendar – GRANTED, and unopposed.

On June 23, 2026, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to appear in Department 21 for the scheduled court trial. Plaintiff moved for relief on July 14, 2026, within approximately three weeks of the dismissal and well within the period prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

Plaintiff establishes that her failure to appear in Department 21 resulted from mistake or excusable neglect. The June 8, 2026 minute order displayed Department 22 in its heading, although the body of the order stated that trial would proceed in Department 21. Plaintiff declares that she timely came to the courthouse, reported to Department 22, checked in with the bailiff, was told she was “on the docket,” and remained there awaiting the call of her case. The declaration of Louise Rossberg corroborates Plaintiff’s account. Plaintiff’s pretrial filings further support her assertion that she intended and was prepared to proceed with trial.

The conflicting department references and Plaintiff’s declared and corroborated interaction with courtroom personnel provide a sufficient basis for discretionary relief. Plaintiff acted promptly after dismissal, Defendant has not opposed the motion, and the record does not disclose case-specific prejudice that would result from restoring the action.

The dismissal entered on June 23, 2026, is set aside. The action is restored to the Court’s active docket. The Court SETS a case management conference for September 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.

The Court will make some minor revisions to the proposed order and then will sign it. Plaintiff is ordered to have a third party serve a copy of the signed order on Defendant by mail at the Yosemite address within five days of issuance of the signed order.

CV-25-012299 – ARREGUIN, TIFFINY RENE vs CASTILLO, SAMUEL DEJE MIRANDA - Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages - HEARING REQUIRED.

Plaintiff raises significant new factual bases in her reply and the Court must either disregard it or permit further briefing if so requested by the Defendants. Sufficiency is best tested after an amended pleading, and the Court is currently inclined to allow the amendment, subject to pleading challenges at a later stage.

CV-26-006975 – IN RE: PARKSIDE VILLAS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION - Petitioner's Petition to Reduce Required Voting Percentage for Amendment to CC&Rs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 4275 and Corporations Code Section 7515 - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court suspects the amended proof of service will be accessible by it prior to the hearing.

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

CV-24-010714 - CERVANTEZ, YENI ALEJANDRA CORTEZ vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Defendant City of Turlock's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Discovery Responses and Request for Issue and Evidence Sanctions in the Alternative - CONTINUED to October 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Defendant submitted a declaration stating that the parties are working towards resolving their discovery dispute by September 18, 2026.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing to October 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Moving party to file and serve at least five court days before the hearing either a notice of withdrawal or a declaration describing any narrowing of the issues.

CV-26-000923 –WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MARTINEZ, AARON - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and of Nonappearance – CONTINUED to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

On August 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and of nonappearance. There is no opposition or reply on file.

The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, which requires that parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439 was the delivery of a written communication sent via email on July 16, 2026, to which Defendant did not respond. (Declaration of Kirean D. McKee, ¶¶ 1–2.)

A communication 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 Court CONTINUES the hearing to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Moving party shall attempt to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 439 by no later than six court days before the hearing. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than five court days before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-23-000103 - Disputed Claim of BERNAL, ALEXIA – Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court notes that this motion was untimely filed less than 16 court days before the hearing date, that there is no proof of service for the motion, that there is no proper motion itself (only a notice of hearing and supporting memorandum), that Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) cannot be applied because more than six months have passed since the date of the order at issue, and that even if section 473(b) were applicable, there is no attorney declaration of fault or proposed corrective document attached.

With that stated, the Court has reviewed the case file and can see that the minor’s date of birth as set forth on the Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account does not match the date of birth as recorded in the medical records attached to the underlying minor’s compromise petition. Nor does the name on the order fully match. As the former minor has submitted a declaration in support of the motion and therefore consents to the proposed action, and as no one else would be materially affected by this motion, the Court GRANTS the unopposed request to reopen the minor’s compromise case for the limited purpose of correcting the identifying information on the Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account.

Counsel for the former GAL and former minor to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

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 I. Hood in Department 24:

 

CV-23-002861 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SANCHEZ, ROBERTO VIVEROS – Petitioner’s Motion to Continue Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1050 – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to find that good cause exists to grant the requested continuance based on the planned filing of the moving party’s potentially dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the court requires clarification as to whether notice of this motion has been given to the Peoples’s witnesses, if any . (Penal Code § 1050(b)

The parties should come prepared to discuss a new trial date.

CV-24-010014 - DUBROVNA, OLHA vs SOUTHWESTERN ADVANTAGE INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Appearance at Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $6,142.05 – DENIED.

The Court finds that the residency limitation in Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 prevents the court from granting Plaintiff’s request given that the record demonstrates that Plaintiff  currently resides in Poland and did so at the time of service of Defendants’ deposition notices. .A trial court's orders regarding the location of depositions are subject to the restrictions of section 1989.Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, as modified (July 28, 2011). Notably the Court in Toyota Motor Corp, supra expressly disagreed with Glass v and expressly declined to follow it. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 1107 at 1124).

Plaintiff did not object to either deposition notice on grounds of location, foreign residency, or Code of Civil Procedure section 1989, supporting a finding that Plaintiff waived objections to same. However, the Court finds said waiver insufficient to overcome the limitations of  Civil Procedure section 1989.

Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff's personal attendance in California is therefore denied. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also accordingly denied based on the court’s finding that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in failing to attend the noticed in person deposition  Plaintiff shall appear for remote videoconference deposition within 45 days. The parties are to meet and confer to agree on a date and time for said deposition. 

CV-26-000478 - DONAHUE, JOSEPH THOMAS vs MAYOL, TRENTON – a) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container, LLC and Trenton Mayol S Demurrer to Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue S First Amended Complaint -– CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. b) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container, LLC and Trenton Mayol S Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue S First Amended Complaint –CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

a) The Court notes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ meet and confer correspondence and total failure to engage in the statutorily required meet and confer process. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41. In fact, Plaintiff’s Opposition makes no reference whatsoever to his meet and confer obligations -  did not deny receiving same, did not address meet and confer obligations, and did not explain his failure to engage in the required meet and confer.

Accordingly, this motion is continued to September 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for the required meet and confer to take place “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” and for a determination of whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. The parties shall file a Joint Status Statement no later than September 22, 2026, detailing their meet and confer efforts and advising the Court as to the status of the demurrer.

The parties are advised that good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court(EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court(Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

 

b) The Court notes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ meet and confer correspondence and total failure to engage in the statutorily required meet and confer process. Code of Civ. Proc. §435.5. In fact, Plaintiff’s Opposition makes no reference whatsoever to his meet and confer obligations -  did not deny receiving same, did not address meet and confer obligations, and did not explain his failure to engage in the required meet and confer.

Accordingly, this motion is continued to September 30, 2026, at 8:30 am  in Department 24 of this Court for the required meet and confer to take place “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” and for a determination of whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. The parties shall file a Joint Status Statement no later than no later than September 22, 2026, detailing their meet and confer efforts and advising the Court as to the status of the motion to strike.

The parties are advised that good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court(EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court(Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

CV-26-000481 - GUTIERREZ, ELVA vs MADRIGAL, MIGUEL – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED.

Good cause existing Albert Bagdasarian Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Elva Guttierez’s motion for leave to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff is hereby granted. ( California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362).

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***