Civil Tentative Rulings

March 20, 2026

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

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

CV-21-002823 – ALLIANCE OF SCHOOLS FOR COOP INS PROGRAM vs TAYLORWHARTON CRYOGENICS LLC – Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint – CONTINUED to April 29, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to April 29, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

CV-22-001046 – THORNBERRY, KENNETH L vs STANISLAUS COUNTY – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees - GRANTED with modification.

Introduction

Following entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff Kenneth L. Thornberry, Trustee of the Kenneth L. Thornberry and Pamela B. Thornberry Revocable Trust, in the underlying tax refund action, the Court previously awarded trial-level attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The County appealed the merits judgment but did not appeal the trial-level fee award.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, and the remittitur issued on January 8, 2026. Plaintiff now seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and expenses totaling $59,275.27 incurred in defending the appeal.

Disputed Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees on appeal. The opposition challenges only the amount of fees sought, and only as to specific categories of billing. Each of the disputed categories is summarized below.

        Case Strategy Time (Internal Conferences)

Defendant disputes the time billed under the category of “case strategy,” which consists primarily of internal conferences and coordination among appellate and trial counsel.

Plaintiff seeks compensation for a total of 37.0 hours of case strategy time, allocated as follows:

        - Robert Aversa‑Goodman: 14.0 hours at $340/hour, totaling $4,760.00

        - Makayla A. Whitney: 10.8 hours at $365/hour, totaling $3,942.00

        - Michael B. Ijams: 12.2 hours at $485/hour, totaling $5,917.00

The total amount sought for case strategy time is thus $14,619.00.

Defendant asserts that this category reflects duplicative effort and unnecessary staffing by multiple attorneys and argues that the time spent in internal conferences should be reduced or disallowed.

The Court does not agree with the contention that the time should be completely disallowed. Case strategy serves a legitimate purpose. Attorney Whitney, who was a primary attorney at the trial level, contributed her intimate knowledge of the case, and Attorney Ijams, who has practiced law for almost half a century and has significant familiarity with appeals, provided an experienced perspective.

With that stated, the Court notes that the issue presented on appeal was unusually narrow. Specifically, Defendant was only challenging the standard of review that the Court applied to analyze the Assessor’s methodology. Given the discrete scope, the hours spent in case strategy appear inflated. In addition, the Court questions Attorney Ijams’ large billing in this category, which almost equals the primary attorney’s billing. While Attorney Ijams’ broad, practical knowledge and experience in appeals would have provided value, his work was mainly supervisory, and he did not contribute case-specific knowledge. (See 2/17/26 Ijams Decl. ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, the Court reduces Attorney Aversa-Goodman’s and Attorney Whitney’s billing in this category by 25% (to 10.5 and 8.1 hours, respectively), and Attorney Ijams’ billing in this category by 33%, to 8.2 hours.

        Oral Argument Preparation

Defendant disputes the amount of time billed by appellate counsel Robert Aversa‑Goodman for preparing for oral argument.

Plaintiff seeks compensation for 32.4 hours of oral argument preparation at a rate of $340 per hour, totaling $11,016.00.

Defendant argues that this amount of preparation time is excessive in light of the limited duration of oral argument and asserts that appellate matters are generally decided on the briefs.

On reply, Plaintiff emphasizes the importance of being well-prepared for oral argument.

The Court agrees with the importance of preparation but also agrees that the hours are again inflated given the narrow scope of the appeal. The Court therefore reduces the time billed in this category by 25%, to 24.3 hours.

        Travel Time and Travel‑Related Expenses

Defendant disputes both the time and expenses associated with Attorney Aversa‑Goodman’s in‑person appearance at oral argument before the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

The disputed amounts are:

        - Travel time: 3.8 hours at $340/hour, totaling $1,292.00

        - Travel and lodging expenses: $410.27

The combined disputed amount for travel‑related billing is $1,702.27.

Defendant contends that remote appearance should have been utilized and argues that the travel time and expenses were unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Court does not find this argument persuasive. It is the prerogative of an attorney to determine whether in-person or remote appearance would be more effective for an appellate oral argument, and the Court is disinclined to superimpose its own judgment unless there was a clear reason why the attorney’s choice made little sense under the circumstances.

        Hourly Rate of Robert Aversa‑Goodman

Defendant challenges the reasonableness of Mr. Aversa‑Goodman’s hourly rate of $340 per hour, based on his years of admission to the bar.

Because Attorney Aversa‑Goodman billed a total of 115.5 hours, Defendant’s rate challenge implicates $39,270.00 in attorneys’ fees. Defendant does not identify an alternative rate or propose a specific reduction, but rather, only asserts generally that the rate is excessive.

The Court recognizes that Attorney Aversa-Goodman was only admitted to the Bar in 2022. However, his career has focused on appellate law from the outset. Given the number of appeals he has already handled, his appellate experience exceeds that of the great majority of California attorneys. Consequently, the Court does not find his billing rate on this case of $340 to be excessive and declines the invitation to modify it.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs but modifies the amount granted to $52,405.77.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-24-000948 – ALVARADO, VINCENT vs HEARTLAND GRAIN & MILL – Defendant Pacific Elements LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims herein. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment for Defendant.  Plaintiff has met this burden. Specifically, Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates material factual disputes with regard to the issue of Defendant’s retained control over safety issues related to the work performed by contractors on Defendant’s property, including the provision of safety training and instruction on the use of the manlift and the scope of Defendant’s knowledge regarding the contractors’ use of the lift to accomplish the work assigned to them by Defendant.  (See, at a minimum, UMFs 5, 10, 19, 23, 28, 34, and Plaintiff’s Additional Facts.)

Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s evidence are SUSTAINED on the grounds stated. In addition, the Court finds Exhibits Ex. D, F, and G to the Sims declaration inadmissible, as the law does not allow a party to rely on its own discovery responses to establish undisputed material facts in support of a motion for summary judgment. (CCP § 2033.410(a); see, e.g., Great American Ins. Cos. v. Gordon Trucking, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 445, 450.)

CV-25-012096 – PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs CHAVEZ, JONATHAN – a) Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession as to Jonathan Chavez – DENIED, without prejudice; b) Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession as to North Bay Construction & Engineering – DENIED, without prejudice.

a-b) These matters are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature and lacking sufficient notice. The Court notes that Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint has not expired, and the effective date of service of these matters is less than 16 court days before the hearing (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

CV-24-004267 – VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents from Defendant Sutter Valley Hospitals - DENIED, as MOOT.

The instant motion is MOOT in view of the parties’ acknowledgement that Defendant served further responses on 2-26-26. Any perceived insufficiencies in Defendant’s further responses should be addressed via meet and confer efforts and, if necessary, by the appropriate motion.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for 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 for Department 19***