Civil Tentative Rulings

October 22, 2026

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

CV-25-005773 - ART BUILDINGS LLC vs ROMSPEN CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED, effective on the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on the client. Attorney Wood is ordered to file a new proposed order within five court days that checks boxes 3(b), 5(a), and 9(a).

On September 17, 2026, Attorney Tracy Wood filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. There is no opposition in the Court file.

CV-26-002154 - WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SODHI, JAKRUN S – a) Defendants Jakrun S. Sodhi, Ameet S. Birring and Sodhi Law Group APC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint -CONTINUED to December 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21. b) Defendants Jakrun S. Sodhi, Ameet S. Birring and Sodhi Law Group APC's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and Emotional Distress Damages and Cause of Action for Fraud - CONTINUED to December 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21.

a- b) There is no meet and confer declaration. The Court CONTINUES the hearings to December 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a) by no later than November 12, 2026. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than Nov. 23^rd, 2026 before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

The demurrer is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.” It further provides, “If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.”

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

CV-20-001778 - LOPEZ, THERESA SUZANNE vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED to November 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Per the judgment filed on May 12, 2025, the $525,000.00 gross settlement amount was to be paid by Defendant to the Claims Administrator in 12 monthly installments of $43,750.00. The installment payments were to be completed by March 2026. The settlement was then to be divided amongst the employee pool on a pro rata basis according to pay periods worked. Employees had 180 days to cash their checks, after which, the checks would be cancelled. Any unclaimed funds are to be remitted to the State Controller's Office in the name of the aggrieved employee.

The Court now needs a declaration from the Settlement Administrator regarding the status of the settlement payments. Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to November 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review. The Settlement Administrator is to filed and serve the declaration no later than November 10, 2026.

Class Counsel to give notice.

CV-26-006244 - BADAL, ZHONIT vs DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES – a) Petitioner's Motion to Augment and Correct Administrative Record - HEARING REQUIRED. b) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

a) Motion to Augment and Correct Administrative Record

Petitioner seeks to add four items to the administrative record:

        1. Exhibit B: an April 20 email seeking guidance concerning the expected weather;

        2. Exhibit D: an April 21 carrier call log reflecting outgoing calls at approximately 8:03 a.m.;

        3. Exhibit F: the complete April 23 rescheduling exchange; and

        4. Exhibit G: the complete April 30 email chain, including Dominique Winston’s statement that another test could not be scheduled after further review.

Petitioner characterizes the motion primarily as one to complete the record but alternatively requests consideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e).

The Court is currently inclined to GRANT the motion as to Exhibits B, F, and G for the limited purpose of evaluating the fairness and chronology of the administrative decisionmaking process. Section 1094.5, subdivision (e), permits the Court to receive relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the administrative hearing. In an independent-judgment case, the Court may admit qualifying evidence at the writ hearing rather than remand solely for its consideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

DMV’s argument that the April documents are necessarily inadmissible because they did not exist at the March 26 hearing is unpersuasive. The evidence was created after the hearing but before DMV issued its final decision. It therefore could not have been produced at the March 26 hearing. More importantly, the documents concern the process by which the pending administrative matter proceeded to the April 30 decision. They are not offered simply to prove that Petitioner drove safely. They bear on whether DMV continued the matter for another examination, what information the hearing officer received after the hearing, and how the matter moved from a promised rescheduling to a refusal to administer another test “[a]fter further review.”

Exhibits B, F, and G are emails to or from the hearing officer during the period in which the administrative matter remained undecided. These items are relevant to evaluating Petitioner’s claim that the ultimate decision followed a posthearing change in course based, at least potentially, on information furnished outside the hearing.

As to Exhibit D, the Court is currently inclined to DENY the motion for lack of foundation and authentication, although without prejudice to consideration if a proper evidentiary foundation is laid at any later hearing.

In addition, Petitioner’s reply flagged that there were two copies of the March 12, 2026 DL 11D. The copy supplied to Petitioner and lodged with the Court appears to leave the evaluation-summary and action sections incomplete. The copy later submitted by DMV contains a narrative of the examination and checked boxes indicating that Petitioner’s errors were not correctable, another test was not recommended, instruction would not assist, and revocation was selected.

The administrative transcript establishes that a two-page DL 11D was admitted as Exhibit 3, but it does not identify the contents of the second page. The Court therefore cannot determine from the present papers which version was admitted, which was disclosed to Petitioner, or which was considered by the hearing officer.

The record should not be “corrected” by silently substituting DMV’s later copy. DMV should lodge a declaration from the administrative-record custodian identifying the provenance of both versions and, if available, a copy of the exhibit actually admitted on March 26. This clarification is necessary because the final decision expressly relies on the examiner’s conclusions that the errors were not correctable and that instruction would not help.

The Court will hear argument on these issues since it will be holding a hearing in any case on the concurrently scheduled petition for writ of mandate.

b) Petition for Writ of Mandate

The Court will hold a hearing on this matter but is currently inclined to GRANT the petition for the purpose of a limited remand, as explained below.

Governing Law

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 authorizes review of a final administrative decision resulting from a proceeding in which a hearing was required, evidence was taken, and the agency was vested with discretion to determine facts. The Court considers whether the agency exceeded its jurisdiction, denied a fair trial, or committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion includes a failure to proceed in the manner required by law, a decision unsupported by findings, or findings unsupported by the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (a)-(b).)

Because the revocation of an existing driver’s license affects a fundamental vested right, the Court exercises independent judgment on the evidence while affording the administrative findings a strong presumption of correctness. (Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1983) 33 Cal.3d 392, 395.) The petitioner bears the burden of showing that the findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 816-817.)

Procedural-fairness questions are reviewed independently. (Nasha L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 482.)

Discussion

The posthearing communications between Hearing Officer Dominique Winston and Modesto Field Office Manager Byron Murrill were not confined to scheduling or uncontroversial procedural matters. The communications supplied additional factual details concerning the disputed March 12 examination, including that the object allegedly struck was a car fender, that a preceding vehicle avoided it, that Petitioner stopped without a valid reason, and that she failed to regain an appropriate speed. The manager acknowledged that the examiner had not documented several of those details and asked whether the additional information would affect the decision to permit another test.

The record does not establish that these substantive communications were disclosed to Petitioner before the final administrative decision or that she was afforded an opportunity to respond. The competing copies of the March 12 DL 11D further prevent the Court from determining whether the examiner’s conclusions concerning correctability, future testing, and professional instruction were admitted and disclosed at the hearing or entered the decisional record later.

These circumstances deprived Petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond to material adverse information and constitute a prejudicial failure to proceed in the manner required by law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b); Gov. Code, §§ 11430.10, 11430.30, 11430.50.)

Should the Court ultimately grant the petition, the April 30, 2026 Notice of Findings and Decision and the May 6, 2026 Departmental Review decision will be set aside and the matter remanded to DMV for further proceedings before a hearing officer who had no substantive involvement in the challenged posthearing communications or prior decision.

On remand, DMV shall identify and disclose the evidence on which it proposes to rely, provide Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to respond to the completed DL 11D and the posthearing factual communications, and issue a new decision setting forth its findings and the evidentiary and legal basis for its determination.

To clarify, even if the Court grants the petition, the Court will not be directing DMV to restore Petitioner’s driving privilege, administer another area drive test, use a particular field office or examiner, or reach any specified result. Those matters remain within DMV’s lawful discretion, to be exercised through a procedurally fair proceeding.

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

CV-25-000613 - LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA Vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III – a) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One - GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - GRANTED, and unopposed. c) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One- GRANTED, and unopposed. d) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

Defense counsel shall serve and submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

b) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

Defense counsel shall serve and submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

c) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)

Defense counsel shall serve and submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

d) The Court finds that Plaintiff 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 Defendants’ 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. 

Defense counsel shall serve and submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1312.)

CV-26-000979 - CASTRO, DAVID vs GOMEZ, PATRICIO CASTRO – Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Amended Verified Answer – GRANTED, in part, with leave to amend; DENIED, in part; and unopposed.

The Court finds that the matters asserted in Defendant’s Amended Answer, Para. 21, 27, 31, 39, 43, 47, 50, 53, and 56 does not constitute a proper response to the allegations of the verified Complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30 and is irrelevant in this context. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) Therefore, the motion is granted as to these matters, with leave to amend.

Further, Defendant’s 2nd, 3rd, 5th through 11th, 13th, 14th, and 16th through 31st  affirmative defenses consist of bare assertions without sufficient factual support for the new matter sought to be added thereby.  (See, e.g. Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294; FPI Development., Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)  Therefore, the motion is granted as to these defenses, with leave to amend.

In addition, Defendant’s prayer for attorney’s fees (Prayer, Item #4)  identifies no statute or agreement on which such an award could be based herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.) Therefore, the motion is granted as to this item, with leave to amend.

 

Lastly, with regard to Defendant’s 1st, 4th, 12th and 15 affirmative defenses, the Court finds that no new matter is asserted thereby; rather, the subject “defenses” challenge the viability of Plaintiff’s claims and operate as a traverse rather than a true affirmative defense. As such, the matter is not required to be alleged in the answer, but the Court cannot conclude that the assertions made therein are irrelevant or improper in this context. Therefore, the motion is denied as to these defenses..

Defendant shall submit a further amended answer within 20 days.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

The following is the tentative ruling 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 for Department 19***