Civil Tentative Rulings

May 20, 2026

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

CV-25-001978 - 1ST UNITED CREDIT UNION vs RODRIGUEZ, ANA B - Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or Alternatively, for Order Prohibiting the Presentation of Evidence and Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.

Defendant failed to respond to any discovery even after an order and failed to oppose this motion. The Answer is stricken and Plaintiff may seek a default.

The Court does not issue further monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order within five days that conforms to this ruling.

CV-25-011281 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs ESSENHEIMER, ERIC EUGENE - Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.

There are procedural failures in the motion that are fatal to it. The Court needs the assistance of the parties.

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

CV-24-001832 - GEORGE, RONEY vs BELL, BRENT - Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-26-000148 - GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INC vs CITY OF MODESTO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SOLID WASTE DIVISION - Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

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

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

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

CV-24-004931 - MONDRAGON, ERIKA vs CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Central California Child Development Services, Inc.’s Further Responses to Request for Production (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount Of $13,426.83 - CONTINUED; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Central California Child Development Services, Inc.'s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $13,426.83 - CONTINUED.

a) At the moving party’s request,  this matter is continued to September 28,  2026 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

b) At the moving party’s request,  this matter is continued to September 28,  2026 at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff's Previous Attorney of Record, Shiloh Parker - DENIED, without prejudice. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court is very unhappy with how proceedings in this matter have progressed, with Counsel apparently bent on obtaining sanctions against each other without working towards keeping this case progressing. This is the second sanctions motion in this matter within the past week, and the Court notes another upcoming in June. The moving party for that motion is advised to give serious consideration to the need for that motion.

In light of Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrating that the pleadings herein were not served on Ms. Parker in compliance with statutory procedures the Court finds that Ms. Parker was not served with notice of this motion as a matter of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17538.5). To the extent that Ms. Parker is the object of this motion, due process is implicated. 

The Court finds that Defendant’s motion does not comply with the statutory mandate requiring motions for sanctions such as this to be made separately.(Civ. Proc. Code §§ 128.7(c) (1) and Civ. Proc. Code 128.5 (f)(1)(A)).

As to the safe harbor requirement, the record shows that the safe harbor requirement was not met. While the alleged statement is claimed to have been was made in open court as opposed to a pleading or a written document, to the extent that corrective action was still possible, the safe harbor requirement may arguably be applicable. ( CPF Vaseo Assocs., LLC v. Gray, (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 997 and  at 1006).

Based on these procedural deficiencies, the court declines to reach the merits of the motion.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms with the Court’s ruling in five court days.

CV-25-008918 - STONE , CLINTON LEE vs STONE , PAUL RUSSELL - Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer - GRANTED, unopposed.

Defendant’s Answer filed hereto is not verified. “When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 446). The allegations of a verified complaint are admitted by a failure to deny them in an Answer, a general denial being insufficient to put them in issue. (Hirons v. Clare, (1918) 38 Cal. App. 608, 1770). Therefore, it is not error to strike out from an answer a general denial to a verified cross-complaint. (Kinard v. Kaelin, (1913) 22 Cal. App. 383).

A proper objection where a party fails to verify a pleading is a motion to strike, which may be made only upon timely notice and provide for hearing and extension of time to answer.  (Perlman v. Municipal Court for Los Angeles Judicial Dist. of Los Angeles County (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 568).

In view of Defendant’s unverified Answer containing a general denial to Plaintiff’s verified Complaint, good cause exists to strike Defendant’s Unverified Answer.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Answer herein is hereby stricken.

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:

UD-26-000387 - GONZALEZ, HONORATO vs TEP, SANITH - Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - HEARING REQUIRED.