Civil Tentative Rulings

April 17, 2026

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

CV-24-003763 – NATIONWIDE WEST LLC vs RAMON, AMANDA RAE – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered: CCP 473(b), CCP 473.5 CIV. 1788.61 CCP 473(D) and Quash Service of Summons (CCP 418.10) – DENIED.

Defendant has not met her burden to demonstrate entitlement to discretionary or mandatory relief. The record reflects that Defendant was aware of this action no later than April 2025 and appeared in court on May 23, 2025 where I informed her of the default. Defendant waited over eight months before bringing the present motion. This lack of diligence weighs against relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b) and 473.5.

Defendant also fails to establish that substituted service of the summons and complaint was improper or that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s proof of service of the summons and complaint reflects substituted service at the address Defendant provided in the automobile sales contract which is the basis for the lawsuit, and Defendant’s denial of receipt and speculation regarding the person served do not rebut the presumption of valid service.

Defendant alleges that the subject vehicle was sold fraudulently, but this is not an issue for which Plaintiff appears responsible.

CV-24-004875 – HINDS, GIB vs GLECASHMAN ALMOND RANCH ONE LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Assignment Order – HEARING REQUIRED.

Although Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510 authorizes assignment of a judgment debtor’s right to payment that is due or to become due, including rights contingent on future developments, the judgment creditor bears the burden of showing a cognizable, assignable right to payment held by the debtor.

Further, the imposition of a condition forbidding assignment of the payments appears inconsistent with the potential sale of the property, which it appears would generate sufficient money to cover the debt.

The Court has questions.

CV-24-008274 – DOUGLAS, SHAWNA MARIE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Four) – DROPPED. b) Defendant’s Motion Pursuant to the Protective Order to Maintain Confidentiality Designation of Internal Investigation Files Implicating Nonparties – DROPPED. c) Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions – DROPPED. d) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative Summary Adjudication – DROPPED.

a-d) DROPPED at the request of the parties. The Court thanks the parties for the prompt submission of the Notice of Settlement.

CV-25-008819 – CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs HARLANS CONSTRUCTION – Defendant Ken Harlan Jr’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – MOOT.

The demurrer filed by Defendant Ken Harlan Jr. DBA Harlan’s Construction DBA Harlan’s Chimney Sweep is MOOT. On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed “Defendant Harlan’s Construction DBA Harlan’s Chimney Sweep” from the lawsuit with prejudice.

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

641917 – UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS VS. LOPEZ, LAURA A – Defendant’s Motion to Require Levying Officer to Accept Claim of Exemption for Review by the Court – GRANTED, and unopposed.

On March 24, 2026, Defendant Laura Lopez filed the instant Motion to Require Levying Officer to Accept Claim of Exemption for Review by the Court under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 703.030(c) and 473(b) because, according to Ms. Lopez’s unopposed memorandum, accompanying declarations, and exhibits, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) denied Ms. Lopez’s Claim of Exemption on the basis that it was submitted three days late under § 703.520. The motion is unopposed.

“A natural person against whom enforcement of a money judgment is sought may claim certain statutory exemptions pursuant to Title 9, Division 2, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.” (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Anila.org, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2004, No. C-03-2168 SC) 2004 WL 2196553, at *1.) When a Notice of Levy is served by mail, “the claim [of exemption] shall be made within 20 days after" service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.520.) A court may “relieve a person upon such terms as may be just from failure to claim an exemption within the time and in the manner prescribed in the applicable enforcement procedure.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.030(c).)

Here, Ms. Lopez states that she was surprised to learn that there was a hold on her bank account on or about October 8, 2025. She visited the bank in person to inquire about the hold. The teller gave her a copy of a Notice of Levy on her account and Ms. Lopez also learned that approximately $7,339 was taken out of her account. On October 23, 2025, Ms. Lopez—by and through the assistance of a nonprofit legal services organization—attempted to file with the LASD a Claim of Exemption and Financial Statement under § 703.520. In response, the LASD stated that it would not accept the Claim of Exemption because it was three days late. According to LASD, the Notice of Levy was mailed on September 30, 2025 and the last day to file a claim of exemption was October 20, 2025. Ms. Lopez states that she was never served with the Notice of Levy, either by mail or in person. Her earliest possible notice of any issue with her account was October 8, 2025 and she promptly filed the Claim of Exemption 15 days later.

The Court finds that relief under § 703.030(c) is warranted. Even by LASD’s count, the Claim of Exemption was merely three days late. Courts have granted relief for claims of exemption filed over three months after the statutory deadline. (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Anila.org, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2004, No. C-03-2168 SC) 2004 WL 2196553, at *2 [“However, perhaps recognizing that an enforcement of judgment often imposes significant hardship on the debtor, the statute explicitly provides the Court discretion to relieve the claimants from these prescriptions ‘upon such terms as may be just.’”].)
 

Ms. Lopez states that the LASD never served her with the Notice of Levy, therefore her Claim of Exemption was not late. As soon as she found out about the hold on her account, she promptly investigated, discovered the Notice of Levy, and attempted to file her Claim of Exemption. Further, the Court notes that the instant motion as well as the complaint, summons, and proof of service in this matter list a single residential address for Ms. Lopez. Yet, the address on Notice of Levy is different and instead lists a P.O. Box.

Finally, it appears that LASD failed to serve the Claim of Exemption on the judgment creditor as it is required to do “[p]romptly after the filing of the claim of exemption.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.540.) The procedure then allows the judgment creditor, if it wishes, to file an opposition and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption within 15 days after service of a claim of exemption. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.550.) “If copies of the notice of opposition and notice of motion are not filed with the levying officer within the time allowed, the levying officer shall immediately release the property to the extent it is claimed to be exempt.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.550.)

Accordingly, Ms. Lopez’s motion is GRANTED. Ms. Lopez shall re-submit her Claim of Exemption within 15 days of the entry of the Court’s order. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department [i.e., the Los Angeles County Levying Officer (File No. 2025081299)] shall accept Ms. Lopez’s Claim of Exemption and serve it on the judgment creditor in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 703.540 et seq. If the funds have already been released to the judgment creditor, LASD and judgment creditor shall submit declarations with the Court explaining when and to whom the funds were released within 15 days of the Court’s order. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the file. Therefore, the Court directs the moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

2014212 – VILLEGAS, TERESA E MENDEZ VS DUARTE NURSERY INC – Compliance Hearing – CONTINUED to June 17, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Having reviewed the Proposed Amended Judgment submitted to the Court on or around March 5, 2026, the Court finds the order acceptable and will sign it. 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.

The hearing on this matter is CONTINUED to June 17, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22 for a final declaration from the Settlement Administrator confirming the cy pres distribution and the lack of any remaining funds. The declaration shall be filed at least five court days before the hearing date.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 23***

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

CV-24-006803 – NICHELSON, RODNEY vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Tax Counsels Memorandum of Costs – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court taxes $3,509.38 from Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs based on claims for costs not reasonably incurred at the time of filing the Memorandum of Costs.  (Civ. Code § 1794(d)). Anticipated costs are not recoverable.

The court considers both sets of jury fees to have been reasonably incurred. Research and overhead costs are not recoverable.

Parking costs are unexplained and unsupported.

Plaintiff shall recover allowable costs in the amount of $1,452.05.

CV-25-001822 – NAITAMAR, SELMANE vs NAITAMAR, HAJER – Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Value – GRANTED.

Good cause existing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

In the absence of any objection by Defendant, Mr. John Hillas of Hillas Appraisal Company Modesto, CA is appointed appraiser herein. In the alternative the parties may stipulate to an appraiser.

The appraisal costs of $1400 will be shared equally by the parties and shall be paid within ten (10) business days of the hearing on this motion.

A hearing to determine the value of the property is set for August 7, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

Any briefs to be filed by the parties shall be filed no later than July 3^rd, 2026.

Any buyout notice will be according to the provisions of Civ. Proc. Code § 874.316 after the determination of value. 

CV-25-003769 – SOLIS, SERENTIY vs PONCE, PALOMA MONIQUE – Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order to Exclude Unauthorized Persons from Minor’s Deposition – GRANTED.

Good cause existing Defendant motion is granted. (Civ. Proc. Code §§372 (a)(1) and 2025.420 (a) and (b); Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. ( 2014), 223 Cal.App.4th 261, review denied).  

CV-25-008394 – LOPEZ, JORGE vs FITZPATRICK, DENNIS – Defendant’s UC Construction, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Christine Fitzpatrick, and Joseph Thomas Fitzpatrick’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Jorge Lopez’s Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

The Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts establishing that Defendants UC Construction, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Christine Fitzpatrick, or Joseph Thomas Fitzpatrick were Plaintiff’s employer, joint employer, or otherwise subject to liability under the Labor Code. (Capito v. San Jose Healthcare Sys., LP, (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 273;Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550; ( Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35;CCP § 430.10(e))

Plaintiff relies on conclusory and undifferentiated allegations that “Defendants” exercised control, without pleading defendant‑specific facts supporting employer status, alter‑ego liability, or individual liability. (Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. v. George, (2025)114 Cal. App. 5th 655; Leek v. Cooper, (2011)194 Cal. App. 4th 399). P’s allegations are similarly inadequate here.

Because each cause of action is pleaded against all defendants and rests on employer status, and the Complaint does not allege facts establishing employer/joint employer/alter ego as to the demurring defendants, each cause of action is insufficient as to them.”

The demurrer for uncertainty is also sustained based on Plaintiff’s failure to differentiate Plaintiffs or their actions. Naming inconsistencies also exist in the pleadings. To the extent that this deficiency impairs Defendants’ ability to respond the demurrer is also sustained on this basis. (CCP § 430.10(f))

Any amended complaint must plead defendant-specific facts supporting employer/joint employer control and/or an alter ego or statutory basis for individual liability.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Any First Amended Complaint shall be filed and served within 10 days of service of notice of this ruling

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is hereby sustained. (Code of Civ Proc § 430.10).

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***