Civil Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
CIVIL TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCEMENT
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling the calendar line at (209) 530-3162 or the main line at (209) 530-3100, prior to 4:00 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.12 concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 or ctreport@stanct.org to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
Effective April 2, 2012
Staff Court Reporters may be available, though it is not guaranteed, to report law and motion matters on the following schedule:
Department 21 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 22 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays and Fridays. Please call to confirm.
Department 23 - Wednesdays and Fridays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Please call to confirm.
Department 24 - Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Staff Reporters may be available on Wednesdays or Fridays. Please call to confirm.
If a Staff Reporter is not available, counsel can make arrangements to have their hearing reported by a private CSR. Please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209)530-3105 to request a Staff Reporter and to determine if a Staff Reporter will be available for your hearing
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-22-001613 – WATTLE, DANNY LEE vs PLM OPERATIONS LLC – Compliance Hearing – DROPPED.
Based on the May 22, 2026 declaration of Bryn Bridley, the Court finds that compliance has been demonstrated and no hearing is necessary.
Class counsel is directed to submit a form of amended judgment which identifies the amount of unclaimed settlement funds to be deposited with the State Controller for handling pursuant to that office’s unclaimed property procedures.
Lastly, Class counsel shall submit a form of revised order reflecting the Court’s ruling herein.
CV-23-001506 – DOE, JOHN vs STANISLAUS COUNTY – Defendant Stanislaus County’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – DENIED.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for the Court to order bifurcation in this instance pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1048 or 598.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-23-000016 – IREIT TURLOCK BLOSSOM VALLEY LLC vs DECHINA 1 BUFFET INC – Defendant Ouchina Buffet, Inc’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint – MOOT.
Following Defendant Ouchina Buffet’s dismissal from this action without prejudice, this demurrer is rendered moot.
CV-23-005108 – ESQUIVEL, JUDY vs MONTUY, POLLY – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – DENIED, without prejudice.
The Court notes that Defendants’ Motion does not demonstrate proof of service on Plaintiffs. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b)).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is hereby denied without prejudice
CV-23-007007 – HAMMERSTROM, BRUCE vs VASQUEZ, GEORGE – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Intentional Tort – GRANTED, unopposed.
Upon a consideration of all the evidence and testimony adduced, the Court finds that no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant Duke committed an intentional tort against Plaintiff herein and whether Defendant conspired with other
Defendants to commit said intentional tort and whether Plaintiff suffered any physical, mental and or emotional injury as a result.
The undisputed evidence establishes Defendant lacked the requisite intent for the alleged cause of action for intentional tort, did not conspire with any of the Defendants to commit said tort and did not cause Plaintiff any physical or mental injury or emotional distress. (Defendant’s SSUMFs 1-12; Defendant’s Exhibits A-E; Code of Civil Procedure § 437(c) ; Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., (2001), 25 Cal. 4th 826, as modified (July 11, 2001)
The Court therefore grants Defendant Charles Duke’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice as against Defendant Charles Duke.
The Court will sign the Proposed Order.
CV-25-000315 – CV-25-000315 – CRUZ, EFRAIN ESQUIVEL DE LA vs GUTIERREZ, VELIA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Added Costs – Granted, in part, DENIED, in part.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled as the prevailing party herein to reasonable attorney fees and court costs herein.(Civil Code § 1780 (a) and (e); Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, C.A.92017, 845 F.3d 916; Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140; Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, C.D.Cal.2010, 796 F.Supp.2d 1160).
The Court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the limited availability of local experienced Consumer attorneys compared to areas of Southern California such as San Diego where Plaintiff’s Counsel is located and finds that out of Counsel rates are supported herein. (Nicholas v Taft, (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1233; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005), 132 Cal.App.4th 359).
Based on Counsel’s touted extensive experience and efficiency, the Court finds that the total time expended by Counsel is subject to reduction. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133; Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, (2025)112 Cal. App. 5th 1147).
The Court also finds that court costs, no expert fees are recoverable by a prevailing Plaintiff under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (Civil Code § 1780 (e)).
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff entitled to reasonable attorney fees of $15,285.
Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to the Court’s ruling within five court days.
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 in Department 19***