Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

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

July 19, 2024

The following are the tentative ruling 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 John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-23-002171 – MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL, JR – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Responses to Request for Production from Defendant Thanh Ly Set One(1), and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $5,260.00 – CONTINUED to August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant El & El Wood Products Corp Set One(1), and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $5,260.00 – CONTINUED to August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Responses to Request for Production from Defendant El & El Wood Products Corp. Set One (1). and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $5,260.00 – CONTINUED to August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

a-c) CONTINUED to August 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

The parties shall submit a further Joint Status Statement, describing their ongoing meet-and-confer efforts and briefly setting forth their respective positions on any matters remaining in dispute, no later than August 12, 2024.

CV-23-002478 – LOPEZMARTINEZ, LUCIA vs PCV MODESTO 1 LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Paga Settlement and Dismiss Action with Prejudice – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Based on the information provided in the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State’s goal of benefitting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement and the distribution of the settlement funds, including the amounts allocated to attorney’s fees and costs, as set forth in the moving papers.  (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).)

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-23-006764 – VARDEHEISAKAN, TAMI vs SANDHU SE STORES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Sandhu Se Stores Inc.’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the information sought in the subject Special Interrogatories, pursuant to the provisions of Civ. Code § 3295(c) requiring Defendant to identify relevant documents and competent witnesses. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)  Defendant shall serve verified further responses within 30 days.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

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

CV-21-002417 – CLEMENTS, BOBBY vs ODAY, JEFF – Defendants’ Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions and in the Alternative Evidentiary Sanctions – GRANTED, in part, Denied in part, unopposed.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of February 16, 2023, compelling Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s properly propounded discovery within fourteen (14) days, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s verbal admonishment in that regard at the Case Management Conference of October 30, 2023, constitutes a willful failure to comply with the Court’s orders that warrant the imposition of terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. (Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010 and 2023.030; Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 727, rehearing denied, review denied; Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 285; Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004), 117 Cal.App.4th 913; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 6050.

Monetary Sanctions of attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $1560.00 are hereby awarded against Plaintiff payable to Defendant’s Counsel, Aleshia M. White within thirty (30) days of service of this order on Plaintiff.

CV-22-004296 – B.,L. vs DOE 1 – Defendant County of Stanislaus’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

 

The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings herein.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, this matter is continued to Thursday, September, 12 at 8:30 am in Department 24.

CV-23-007007 – HAMMERSTROM, BRUCE vs VASQUEZ, GEORGE – Defendant Charles Duke’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – DENIED.

In view of Plaintiff’s filing of a supplementary proof of service by Virgina Lucas, a registered process server on 5/8/24 addressing errors on the original proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant herein, the Court finds that service of said summons and complaint on Defendant is proper. (Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10).

Furthermore, failure to serve a summons and complaint within sixty days does not render said service improper.

The Court notes that that a motion to quash brought past the stipulated 30 days does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion and does not require denial of the motion.  (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (2023) 87 Cal. App. 5th 964 review denied (May 3, 2023).)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff herein obtained the required order to file the instant action.

Defendant shall file his responsive pleading within fifteen (15) days of the Court’s order herein. (Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10 (b)).

CV-24-000803 – OJEDA, AGUSTIN, JR vs DOE, JOHN – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, unopposed.

Good cause existing, Plaintiff’s Counsel Malek Shraibiti Esq., and BD&J PC’s motion to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Austin Ojeda is hereby granted. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362)

The effectiveness of the Court’s order relieving Counsel is delayed till proof of service of same on Plaintiff.

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 in Department 19***

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.