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 for Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
2017857 - WAHR FINANCIAL GROUP VS STORMENT, JAIME - Defendant's Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(D) - DENIED.
On July 24, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to vacate default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Defendant argues the judgment is void because Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
“The court . . . may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).) “[A] section 473(d) motion to vacate a judgment that is void for lack of proper service is not subject to the judicially imposed two-year limitation.” (California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 225.)
Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of service on January 7, 2016. The address for service was confirmed by at least the post office and a grant deed from the county recorder. The proof of service indicates that the summons and complaint were served by substituted service on a co-resident of Defendant at Defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode on January 3, 2016, and also that the documents were subsequently mailed to the same address. Thus, the service was in compliance with section 415.20 and there exists a presumption that the service was proper.
Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service was proper. Defendant states that they did not receive the served documents. Plaintiff avers that the parties had two phone conversations shortly following service, in which the debt amount and potential settlement were discussed. Therefore, it appears Defendant was properly served and/or had constructive notice of the case.
CV-26-005707 - BEOUGHER, DENNIS vs CITY OF PATTERSON - Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief - CONTINUED to November 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed on August 4, 2026, and the Court’s Order signed on the same day, the hearing is CONTINUED to November 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
Petitioner’s opening brief, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before August 27, 2026.
Respondent’s opposition brief, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before September 24, 2026.
Petitioner’s reply brief, limited to 15 pages shall be filed on or before October 8, 2026.
CV-26-006244 - BADAL, ZHONIT vs DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES - Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate on June 22, 2026, seeking the issuance of a peremptory writ commanding Respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to set aside and vacate two decisions dated April 30, 2026 and May 6, 2026. Petitioner also filed a proof of service indicating that Respondent DMV was served via personal service on June 29, 2026.
On June 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of the petition. On August 10, 2026, Petitioner filed an unauthorized supplemental memorandum in support of the petition. On August 13, 2026, Petitioner lodged the administrative record. On the same day, Petitioner filed a “response” to the administrative record. It is not clear whether Petitioner seeks to augment the administrative record. To the extent Petitioner seeks to augment the administrative record, Petitioner shall file a motion to augment administrative record.
Because the administrative record was provided to Petitioner after they filed their opening memorandum, the Court will allow Petitioner time to review and cite the administrative record in a single, consolidated operative memorandum.
The Court intends to CONTINUE the matter to October 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, and to ORDER the following briefing schedule:
Petitioner’s opening memorandum, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before September 10, 2026.
Respondent’s opposition brief, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before September 24, 2026.
Petitioner’s reply brief, limited to 15 pages, shall be filed on or before October 8, 2026.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial [CRC 3.1332] - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to September 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
CV-26-003958 - JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC vs LOPEZ, ALBERTO ELISEO - Defendant's Motion to Compel Private Arbitration and Stay Proceedings - GRANTED.
Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a written arbitration agreement covering the subject dispute and Plaintiff’s refusal to arbitrate the same. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2)
All proceedings herein are stayed pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)
UD-25-000116 - FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION vs JACKSON, MARSHA - Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment - DENIED.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the requested relief.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-23-002260 - CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs REYES, DIANA JASMINE - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - DENIED, without prejudice.
The court finds there to be a discrepancy between the sum for which Plaintiff’s debt was settled and the sum Plaintiff claims Defendant should have paid pursuant to the Settlement. The Court finds it concerning that Defendant is supposed to now owe more than the sum the debt was settled for regardless of payments she has made towards said debt without the inclusion of interest. That cannot be correct.
Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated entitlement to the sum claimed.
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-25-012463 - MONTELLANO, JUANITO vs CERES POSTACUTE CARE - Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings - WITHDRAWN by moving party.
CV-25-001590 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs WASHINGTON, ALISA D - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.
Defendant’s Counsel Alexander Penley of Cordoba Legal Group failed to check the required boxes on his supporting declaration, Form MC-52 affirming that counsel has confirmed his client’s address within the last 30 days or has been unable to confirm the client's address. Counsel also failed to check whether trial has been set in this matter, and if so, the date for which trial has been set. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1362(d)
The 30-day confirmation requirement is substantive, not merely technical and places an affirmative investigative obligation on counsel before filing the motion.
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***