Civil Tentative Rulings

July 17, 2026

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

PR-25-000158 – In the Matter of THE CRUZ FAMILY TRUST – Trustee Joel Cruz's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the Petition for Elder or Dependent Adult Financial Abuse with Wrongful Taking; for Exemplary Damages and Attorney’s Fees and Costs – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Respondent Joel Cruz's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves substantially the same function as a general demurrer and attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) In ruling on such a motion, the Court accepts as true all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) A respondent may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged or that the petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).)

The Court GRANTS Respondent’s unopposed request that the Court take judicial notice of the petition and supplement, along with attached exhibits.

A. Allegations Relating to Scott Cruz

The motion is DENIED insofar as it challenges the sufficiency of the allegations that Scott Cruz was a dependent adult.

Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.23 defines a dependent adult, in relevant part, as a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or protect his or her rights. Petitioner alleges that Scott Cruz was suffering from cancer prior to his death and expressly alleges that Scott was a dependent adult. The petition further alleges that Respondent wrongfully withheld trust assets during the period in which Scott was suffering from that condition.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Petitioner's favor, as the Court must at the pleading stage, the Court concludes these allegations are sufficient to support the inference that Scott's illness impaired his ability to carry out normal activities or protect his rights. The petition need only allege ultimate facts and need not plead evidentiary facts. Whether Scott ultimately qualifies as a dependent adult within the meaning of the statute is a factual issue that cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Respondent's arguments that Scott continued to engage in certain activities despite his illness may be relevant to the merits of the claim, but do not establish that the claim fails as a matter of law on the face of the pleading.

 

Accordingly, the motion is denied as to the allegations premised on abuse allegedly suffered by Scott Cruz.

B. Allegations Relating to Mark Cruz

The motion is GRANTED insofar as it challenges Petitioner's standing to pursue claims predicated on abuse allegedly suffered by Mark Cruz.

The petition alleges that Petitioner is Scott Cruz's surviving spouse and successor in interest. But the petition does not allege that Petitioner is Mark Cruz's personal representative, successor in interest, heir, or other person authorized to pursue claims belonging to Mark Cruz. Instead, the petition alleges that Mark was survived by three children and seeks recovery of trust assets allegedly owed to those children.

Although the petition asserts that Mark suffered from mental illness and required assistance with activities of daily living, the Court agrees with Respondent that the petition fails to allege facts establishing Petitioner's standing to prosecute a dependent-adult-financial-abuse claim on Mark's behalf.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the dependent-adult-financial-abuse allegations premised upon injuries allegedly suffered by Mark Cruz.

C. Leave to Amend

The Court GRANTS leave to amend.

Petitioner did not identify in her opposition how the standing defect could be cured and instead maintained that the petition is presently sufficient. Nevertheless, this is the first pleading challenge directed at these allegations. California law strongly favors permitting amendment where there remains a reasonable possibility that a defect may be cured. On the present record, the Court cannot conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile.

Petitioner shall file and serve any amended pleading within 20 days after service of the signed order.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is:

        - DENIED as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Scott Cruz; and

        - GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Mark Cruz.

Respondent 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:

CV-23-002171 – MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL, Jr – Defendant Truc Than Ly, El & El Wood Products Corp., and Metrie El & El LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternatively Motion for Summary Adjudication – SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment pursuant to the application of the “sudden emergency,” or “imminent peril” doctrine herein. Specifically, the documentary, deposition, and video evidence submitted herein supports the conclusion that Defendant Truc, acting with reasonable care, was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency he did not cause. (Shiver v. Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395, 397.)  The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden, as his responsive evidence gives rise to no more than mere speculation, cannot be regarded as substantial, and is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162–163.)

CV-25-011530 – DIAZ, KIMBERLY vs BLYTHE, HOLLY YVETTE – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe – GRANTED, in part, as follows:

Preliminarily, the Court notes that while submitted as a single motion, the papers herein seek 3 separate orders concerning 3 separate discovery devices: Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; Special Interrogatories, Set Two to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; and Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records directed to non-party In-N-Out Burgers. Such combined motions are disfavored. In this instance, the Court finds that the issues presented with regard to the 2 sets of special interrogatories are sufficiently interrelated as to justify hearing concurrently in the interest of judicial economy, and for that reason the Court will consider those issues together herein.  As to the remaining request for an order concerning the non-party deposition subpoena for business records, the Court declines to consider that issue in this context.

With regard to the issues raised herein with regard to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, the Court notes the parties’ agreement that the responses were untimely served. Therefore, objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) On that basis, the assertion of objections and provision of responsive information subject to the same in Defendant’s responses were without merit, entitling Plaintiff to an order compelling service of further responses, without objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a)(3).) Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, One and Two, shall be provided within 14 days.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. In that regard, the Court awards $675 in sanctions against defense counsel, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c); 2023.010, 2023.030, et seq.)

CV-26-001531 – GONZALEZ, MARGARITA GUTIERREZ vs CENTRAL VALLEY CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICAL GROUP INC – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. b) Defendant’s Motin to Strike Punitive Damages – GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts supporting the challenged 2nd and 3rd causes of action as against Defendant CVMG. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

The Court will grant leave to amend in this instance, despite the fact that Plaintiff did not demonstrate how the pleading could be amended to survive demurrer.  Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

b) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose an order striking the challenged punitive damage allegations at this stage, subject to a future motion for leave to seek such damages.

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

CV-21-003250 – COLON, LUIS vs DDS DISCOUNTS – Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant Zanders has failed to respond to the Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on him on November 6, 2023, by Defendant DD’s Discounts.

Defendant DD’s Discount’s motion is therefore granted.

Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant Zander are hereby waived. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a). Furthermore, said Requests for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted in this matter for all purposes including trial.  Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762. 

DD’s Discounts shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms with the court’s ruling by July 24, 2026.

CV-23-002861 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SANCHEZ, ROBERTO VIVEROS – Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1050 – DENIED, without prejudice.

The People do not demonstrate proof of service on Real Party in Interest Roberto Sanchez. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005.

Accordingly, the People’s motion is denied, without prejudice.

The People shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court’s ruling by July 24, 2026.

CV-24-000847 – ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from the City of Modesto – GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from the City of Modesto – GRANTED.

a) Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad.  Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 531.

Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.210 provides that a party responding to discovery shall respond by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.220 provides that a statement of compliance with the discovery request shall also state:

“…that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.230 provides in relevant part that where a responding party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, any such representation “…shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

The court finds that Defendant’s discovery responses are deficient in failing to include the statements required in Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.210 and 2031.220.  Furthermore, Defendant’s responses that responsive documents have either never existed or been misplaced or lost are equivocal and violate Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.230.

A party is permitted to respond to discover requests with objections and substantive responses. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.210.  However, where the objections are without merit or too general the propounding party may move to compel further responses. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.210 (a)(3). The court finds Defendant’s boilerplate objections are without merit and support a motion to compel further responses.

Objections asserting burden must provide a factual basis for the claimed burden. Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 594-595. Defendant’s assertions of burden are unsupported.

Substantively, Plaintiff asserts without contradiction that the various exhibits referred to are not responsive to the requests at issue.

Accordingly, Defendant shall provide code compliant, objection free, verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three, Numbers 93-95, and 97-111 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 3, 2026. 

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order that conforms to this ruling no later than July 24, 2026.

b) Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Ct., (2017) 3 Cal. 531.

Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Interrogatories shall be answered to the extent possible if they cannot be answered completely, and a lack of personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully shall indicate a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220 

A party responding to interrogatories may assert an objection to all or part of a question. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.240(a). However, boilerplate objections are not acceptable. Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, 909.  Boilerplate objections in conjunction with a lack of straightforward responses render the responses incomplete and evasive and subject to a motion to compel further responses.  Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.200 and 2030.220. 

Additionally, upon a challenge to Defendant’s responses and claims based on a lack of a good faith investigation to obtain the requested information; Defendant may be required to disclose its investigative efforts in that regard. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 782–84.

A responding party who chooses to respond to an interrogatory by specifying the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained must refer to the relevant code section, must demonstrate that (1) a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of documents is necessary in order to answer the interrogatory, (2) no such compilation, abstract, audit, or summary presently exists and (3) the burden or expense of preparing or making a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary would be substantially the same for the propounding party as for the responding party. Civ. Proc. Code §2030.230. In addition, the sufficiency-of-detail requirement effectively demands a level of specificity that enables the propounding party to locate the responsive information without undue burden. Thus, a reference to a large volume of documents is inadequate and subject to challenge. Fuss v. Superior Ct. for Los Angeles Cnty.(1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d. 807, 816.

An objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549; West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417.  This means the responding party must come forward with specific, factual information demonstrating the actual scope and magnitude of the effort that compliance would entail.

A responding party may not unilaterally impose temporal limitations on a propounding party’s discovery. That is the preserve of the court. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are deficient, inadequate, and not code compliant.

Accordingly, Defendant shall provide code compliant, objection free, verified responses to Defendants Special Interrogatories Set Two, Numbers 111,114 -117, 119, 123-128, 130 and 132 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 3, 2026. 

Given Defendant’s complete reversal of its prior discovery responses, any responses that state that Defendant lacks sufficient information to respond shall detail Defendant’s diligent good faith efforts in that regard. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.220; 2030.200; Deyo v Kilbourne, supra.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order that conforms to this ruling no later than July 24, 2026.

CV-24-007631 – LVNV FUNDING LLC vs MERRITT, REBECCA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to the Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on her on December 2, 2025, or at all, without substantial justification.

Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly granted.

Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a). Furthermore, said Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted in this matter for all purposes including trial.  Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762. 

CV-24-009921 – BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs PULLUM, ALTON – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration & Request for Stay/Dismissal – DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant’s motion fails to demonstrate proof of service on Defendant. Civ. Proc. Code §1005.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice.

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***