Civil Tentative Rulings

August 12, 2026

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

CV-23-004719 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs SCOTT, MOSES – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under C.C.P. 664.6 & Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court requires clarification on the basis of the discrepancy in the sums alleged to have been paid by Defendant per Plaintiff’s prior motion to vacate default filed on March 16, 2026, as compared to Plaintiff’s present motion. The Court required this explanation as a condition of refiling the motion, and the reason for counsel’s choice to decline to offer such explanation is unclear.

The Court is inclined to deny the motion.

CV-25-000545 – JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs ROJAS, NIOMI – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment; in the alternative, Motion for New Trial – DENIED.

Plaintiff failed to present evidence at trial and the cases cited by Plaintiff do not stand for the proposition that failing to authenticate or provide authorized evidence permits either a new trial or a notice to vacate the judgment. Without such authority for reversal based on trial errors, the Court declines to grant the motion.

Ordinary prudence would require that a section 98 package provide adequate and legal means of service.

CV-25-008025 – BABYLON BUILDERS INC vs HOMEADVISOR INC – a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – DENIED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions – DENIED. c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories General, Set One (Form Interrogatory No.15.1) – DENIED.

a-c) The motions to compel further responses are DENIED. No sanctions are issued.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are untimely.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c) provides, “Unless notice of [a motion to compel further responses] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” Section 2030.300(c) similarly requires notice of a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories to be given within 45 days.

California courts consistently hold that this 45‑day deadline is mandatory and quasi‑jurisdictional. Failure to comply results in waiver of the right to compel further responses, and the court lacks discretion to excuse noncompliance absent a written stipulation extending the deadline. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [noting that the 45-day time limit is jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them”]; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 [describing discovery motion deadlines as operating in a manner that is jurisdictional in effect]; Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902 [stating that a failure to move to compel further responses “within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response; indeed, similar provisions have been held at least quasi-jurisdictional.”].)

Here, Defendant served its verified responses on April 21, 2026. The statutory deadline for a motion to compel was therefore June 9, 2026. Plaintiff did not file the motions until over 30 days beyond the 45‑day deadline. The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories was filed on July 8, 2026. The other two motions to compel were filed on July 13, 2026. Thus, the motions are untimely

Plaintiff argues that Defendant, on May 28, 2026 via email, offered to extend the deadline to July 9, 2026. But that offer was never agreed to because, on or about May 28, 2026, Plaintiff served the motions to compel and/or represented that the motions had been filed with the Court. In its reply brief, Plaintiff states the May 28, 2026 “draft motions” were never filed with the Court and instead were served to facilitate efforts to resolve the disputes without judicial intervention. But on May 29, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that at least one “motion has already been filed.” On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that it filed the motions a second time “due to a clerk request to correct filing selection” and stating that it would “withdraw the motions for now.” Plaintiff stated that the motions had been filed and never accepted the offer to extend the deadlines. There is no written agreement extending the deadline. Plaintiff waived any right to compel further responses, and sanctions predicated on an untimely motion are improper.

Defendant argues that sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff for filing untimely motions. While the Court acknowledges other procedural irregularities in the motion, there is good cause not to issue sanctions under these circumstances.

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

CV-23-003194 – GODINEZ, JOSE vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS – Compliance Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure 384 – DROPPED.

On June 30, 2026, the Settlement Administrator submitted a declaration stating that there were 123 uncashed checks totaling $19,329.52 that remain uncashed after the deadline. The declaration further states that once directed by the Court or counsel, the settlement administrator will remit all uncashed funds to the State Controller’s Office – Unclaimed Property Fund pursuant to the terms of the settlement. On August 4, 2026, Class Counsel submitted a proposed amended judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds be distributed to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund.

The Court signed the amended judgment on August 4, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 384.5, the court directs the clerk to transmit a copy of the amended judgment along with the original judgment to the Judicial Council for completion of the report required by Section 68520 of the Government Code.

As it appears that all payment obligations regarding the settlement agreement have now been fulfilled, the compliance hearing is DROPPED.

CV-26-000992 – ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, and unopposed.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Governing Law

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) 

Because summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the moving party’s evidence is strictly construed and the opposing party’s evidence is liberally construed, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.) However, when a motion is unopposed, and the movant’s evidence establishes each required element, summary judgment is appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).)

In addition to moving for summary judgment, “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication proceeds in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(2).)

Merits of Summary Judgment

Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(1), by presenting evidence establishing each element of its claims and demonstrating the absence of any triable issue of material fact. The undisputed evidence shows that: (1) Plaintiff and Defendant Protech Phone Repair, Inc. entered into a Receivables Sale Agreement on September 30, 2025 (SUF No. 1); (2) Plaintiff funded Defendant Protech in the amount of $88,600 pursuant to that agreement (SUF No. 2); (3) Defendant Protech agreed to remit periodic payments of $1,500 per week pursuant to the agreement (SUF No. 3); (4) Defendant Ajaypreet Singh guaranteed Protech's obligations under the agreement in the event of a material breach (SUF No. 4); (5) Defendants did not request a contractual reconciliation (SUF No. 5); (6) Defendants' payments began to fail on January 2, 2026 (SUF No. 6); and (7) the amount owed under the agreement is $103,000 (SUF No. 7). Plaintiff further presents evidence that prejudgment interest through May 8, 2026 totals $3,555.62 (SUF No. 8).

These undisputed facts establish the existence of a contract, Plaintiff's performance, Defendants' breach, and resulting damages, thereby entitling Plaintiff to judgment on its cause of action for breach of contract. (SUF Nos. 1-7.)

The same undisputed facts also establish Plaintiff's causes of action for open book account and account stated. (SUF Nos. 1-7.)

Defendants filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses, but Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition stating that no opposition to the motion was received by the statutory deadline, and no opposing evidence has been presented demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has established that no triable issue of material fact exists and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c therefore requires that the motion to be granted.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff ITRIA Ventures LLC and against Defendants Protech Phone Repair, Inc. and Ajaypreet Singh in the principal amount of $103,000, together with prejudgment interest according to proof, costs of suit, and such attorney fees as may be recoverable pursuant to contract and that are properly established by noticed motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5; Civ. Code, § 1717.)

Summary Adjudication

In light of the Court's ruling granting summary judgment, Plaintiff's alternative request for summary adjudication is moot.

Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment

The Court was unable to locate a proposed order and proposed judgment submitted in conjunction with this motion. Consequently, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit within 10 court days a proposed order and a proposed judgment that are consistent with this ruling. 

PR-25-000754 – In the Matter of THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST – Petitioner Dana Garth’s Motion for Relief from Admissions Deemed Admitted, Leave of Court Allowing the Filing of Admissions – CONTINUED to August 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to August 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion and petitions on calendar that date. 

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

CV-22-002266 – MOMENI, SASAN vs MALAK, PIERRE – Plaintiff’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement – HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-25-007838 – ALVARAZ, CRISTAL vs DIAMOND TRUCK SALES – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Diamond Truck Sales’s Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One – GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Diamond Truck Sale’s Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One – GRANTED, and unopposed. c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Diamond Truck Sale’s Initial Responses to Requests for Production, Set One – GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein.

b) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein.

c) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov in this regard, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is also entitled to the mandatory sanction award provided for in Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.050 in this instance. Therefore, an additional monetary sanction in the amount of $1,000 is awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court’s ruling herein.

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

CV-22-004659 – PONCE, CHRISTIAN vs CALIFORNIA DAIRIES INC – Final Fairness Hearing – HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein.

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for February 26, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement.

Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than February 19, 2027, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).)

CV-24-008369 – CHRISTIANSEN, JOSEPH vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC – Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Deposition of Person Most Qualified from Save Mart Supermarkets LLC and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition – GRANTED.

Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10 (d) enables a party to object by demurrer or answer to a pleading on the ground that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties. Save Mart Supermarkets LLC complied with this provision by objecting in both of their Answers.  Barnes v. Rockhold (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d;  Wolff v. Hoaglund (1970 11 Cal.App.3d 227). Plaintiff has subsequently failed to appropriately amend his pleadings in spite of agreeing to do so and despite the court ordering said amendment.

In view of Plaintiff’s failure and or refusal to amend his Complaint, the court finds that Defendant Save Mart Companies is not a proper party to this action. While Plaintiff’s PMQ Notice was directed at the proper party, Save Mart Supermarkets LLC,  since Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC is not a proper party to this action, the PMQ Notice at issue is improper, and Defendants should have been issued a deposition subpoena. (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader, (2007)156 Cal. App. 4th 123;  Terry v. SLICO, (2009)175 Cal. App. 4th 352). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is granted.

Plaintiff shall amend his First Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order to reflect Save Mart Supermarket’s correct nomenclature. 

CV-25-007300 – CITIBANK NA vs SERVIN, ROCIO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant on October 21, 2025, without substantial justification.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore 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 for all purposes including trial.    (Civ Proc. Code §§.2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762).

The following is the tentative ruling for a case 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***