AMENDEDOctober 15, 2025

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

CV-25-001402 – ALEXANDER, STEVEN vs BURLYS CALIFORNIA BISTRO IN C- Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment – GRANTED.  Defendant shall file her proposed answer not later than October 25, 2025.  Plaintiff’s request for an award of fees and costs incurred in obtaining default is DENIED.

The Court finds that this is excusable neglect and Defendant showed an interest in this case. The Court notes that there remain issues with service on this motion, but Defendant has an adequate opportunity to respond.

Many of the fees requested are as to the opposition to set aside the default.

The Court notes that because this issue is not before it, the Court makes no express or implied filing on the merits of the proposed answer.

CV-25-005758 – CALIFORNIA SOLAR INNOVATORS INC vs SRAN FAMILT ORCHARDS INC – Petitioner California Solar Innovators, INC’s Motion to Reopen the Instant Case – GRANTED.  Despite counsel’s assertion that he filed a complete petition to confirm contractual arbitration award in support of this motion; the Court notes the complete petition is not present in its file.  This is likely because it was rejected by the Civil Clerk’s Office on 9/12/25 and counsel was notified of this fact on the same date.  However, the Court reopens the case and directs counsel for Petitioner to file an amended/corrected petition to confirm contractual arbitration award not later than October 25, 2025.  Counsel shall also reschedule and re-notice a hearing on the amended/corrected petition.

CV-25-009060 – CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT vs SPECTRUM MOBILE INC – Petitioner Civil Rights Department’s Petition for an Order Compelling Compliance with Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum - CONTINUED by stipulation to November 6, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.

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

CV-23-006693 – CAMPOSLEDEZMA, JUAN vs INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval – CONTINUED to October 29, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to October 29, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

CV-25-001836 – TD BANK USA NA vs VALDOVINOS, ERIKA O – Plaintiff’s Motion for Admissions of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed.

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

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is therefore GRANTED. All objections to the Requests for Admissions at issue are hereby waived. (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(a).) Furthermore, the Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted for all purposes, including trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§.2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762.)

The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion.

CV-25-008681 – CEDARBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs WALZ, MONTE RICHARD – HEARING REQUIRED.

Legal Standards

“The grant or refusal of a preliminary injunction is, generally speaking, within the discretion of the trial court and its order may be reversed on appeal only if abuse of discretion is shown.” (Gosney v. State of California (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 921, 924.)

A party seeking a preliminary injunction first must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not issue. (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.) Upon such a showing, the trial court must then evaluate two interrelated factors: (1) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief; and (2) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) The moving party bears the burden of proof on each of those issues. (See O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

Service

Based on the proof of service of summons filed on October 8, 2025, and the declaration of Attorney Woodworth filed on October 9, 2025, the Court is satisfied that service of the case documents—including the summons, complaint, and moving papers—has now been properly accomplished, and the Court has obtained personal jurisdiction in this matter.

Merits

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns a unit within their development. Plaintiff received a signal on August 1, 2025, indicating a problem with Defendant’s fire alarm system. Defendant’s fire alarm system shares wiring with the neighboring unit. Plaintiff sent a security contractor to repair the system, but Defendant has refused to allow entry, answer the door, or respond to any attempts at contact. Because both Defendant’s unit and the neighboring unit do not have working horn strobes or heat detectors, the units are in violation of the Stanislaus County Fire Code.

Consequently, Plaintiff seeks an order stating that Defendant and anyone associated with him “are restrained and enjoined from preventing the Association and its Contractors access to the property located at 1121 Cedar Creek Drive, Unit #2, Modesto, CA 95355 (the “Subject Property”) in order that the fire alarm system repairs may be performed and completed.”

The Court finds that this situation presents a risk of irreparable harm and that the balance of interim harms favors Plaintiff. The Court further finds that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits given the governing CC&Rs. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to GRANT the request for a preliminary injunction.

With that stated, it is mandatory that the Court impose a bond where a preliminary injunction is granted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a) [“On granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction.”] The papers fail to address this issue. Therefore, the Court requires a hearing on this matter to determine what bond should be imposed.

PR-25-000458 – IN THE MATTER OF JAMES EDWIN MCGUY LIVING TRUST – Respondent’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - CONTINUED to December 4, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Before bringing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party is required to meet and confer with the opposing party and must file a supporting declaration regarding the efforts to meet and confer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) In addition, a motion for judgment on the pleadings that is brought by a respondent or defendant must be based on one of the two following grounds: (1)” [t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint;” or (2) “[t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is, in effect, a general demurrer and must be based on the pleadings, exhibits attached thereto, and matters that can be judicially noticed. (See Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Here, Respondent represents in her moving papers that she met and conferred with the opposing party. But there is no declaration to support this, and in the opposition, Petitioners contend that no such conference took place. Furthermore, the motion problematically relies on extrinsic evidence.

With that stated, the Court thinks the topic of whether this petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is worthy of further discussion. For this reason, the Court CONTINUES this matter to December 4, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 and orders the parties to meet and confer by one of the means set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 439 within the next 10 days. Respondent is directed to then file and serve a meet-and-confer declaration by no later than November 5, 2025. If the parties have not resolved the dispute, then Respondent is to concurrently file and serve a supplemental brief not exceeding 10 pages that properly applies Code of Civil Procedure § 438(c)(1)(B) to the petition. Petitioners may then file and serve a supplemental opposition by no later than November 19, 2025. No reply will be accepted.

UD-25-000739 – KB HOLDINGS LLC vs SINGH, GURBHEJ – Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment – HEARING REQUIRED.

The following is the tentative ruling for case a calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

UD-25-000871 – KATENJUDE LLC vs WABEL, ALISCHA – Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - HEARING REQUIRED.

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

CV-21-002353 – SHAW, NOLAN vs CRABTREE, ROBERT – Defendant’s Motion for Order Disqualifying Opposing Counsel – DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendants’ motion is timely made as Defendants were unaware till the filing of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on June 12, 2025,  in the related matter of Shaw v Teri Nascimento CV-21-1296 that they were included as creditors of the Estate of Stacey Carlson for which the complaint was filed. Furthermore, the evidence is that Defendants timely addressed this issue with Plaintiff’s Counsel Mr. William Broderick-Villa.  

The Court however finds that while the personal representative of an estate may be required to “commence and prosecute an action for the recovery of real or personal property of the decedent for the benefit of creditors if the personal representative has insufficient assets to pay creditors and the decedent during lifetime”, the estate representative, rather than the estate itself or any beneficiary of the estate, is the client of an attorney retained by the beneficiary to commence and maintain actions and proceedings for the benefit of the estate.  (Probate Code § 9653; Smith v. Cimmet, (2011)199 Cal.App.4th 1381).   Furthermore, this is the case even where the creditors “shall pay such part of the costs and expenses of the suit and attorney's fees or give an undertaking to the personal representative for that purpose, as the personal representative and the creditor agree, or, absent an agreement, as the court or judge orders.” (Probate Code § 9653; Smith v. Cimmet, (2011)199 Cal.App.4th 1381).

Furthermore, an executor or administrator occupies a fiduciary relationship in respect to all parties having an interest in the estate including heirs, beneficiaries under will and creditors, and, as a fiduciary, has duty toward such parties to protect their legal rights in the estate. (Nathanson v. Superior Ct., (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 355, 525).

The Court therefore finds that Defendants herein are not clients of Mr. Willliam Broderick Villa, Counsel for the Personal Representative of Stacey Carlson.

Consequently, the Court need not address the claims of adverse representation or breach of loyalty made against Mr. Broderick-Villa.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is hereby denied.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §§451() and 452(d)(g) and (h)).

CV-24-000739 – OWENS, SARAH vs OAKDALE VETERINARY GROUP INC – Plaintiff Sarah Owen’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action of Settlement – GRANTED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court the Court finds as follows:

The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

10-30--25	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator.
11-14-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
1-23-26	Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes.
1-30-26	Deadline for Class Administrator to Submit Declaration of Compliance and Due Diligence.
2-4-26	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for March 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

The Court continued the compliance hearing to this date at the parties’ request, however, there is no declaration from the settlement administrator in the Court’s file.  Counsel shall be prepared to provide the Court with an update on the status of the settlement.

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:

UD-25-001032 – DHINSA, AVTAR vs ZEIGLER, JOHNE – Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-25-001015 – BIXLER, CARLENE vs BIXLER, GEORGIA ANN – Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.