Civil Tentative Rulings

March 26, 2026

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:

CV-26-000101 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS vs CITY OF MODESTO - Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. The petition asks the Court to order Respondent Modesto Police Department to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson. The verified petition alleges the following:

        (1) Petitioner requested the footage pursuant to the California Public Records Act on December 4, 2025, via hand delivery;

        (2) The request was received by the Police Department and logged as CPRA Request No. 25-1089;

        (3) The request seeks disclosure of body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner. No citation was issued; no arrest occurred; and no criminal charges were filed. There is no ongoing investigation associated with the encounter;

        (4) Respondent Police Department did not respond within the statutory 10 day deadline proscribed by Government Code § 7922.535;

        (5) Respondent Police Department subsequently closed the request and withheld the footage, citing generalized law enforcement exemptions and implying that a subpoena would be required to obtain the records;

        (6) and Respondent MPD failed to provide adequate justification for withholding the records.

Under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), any person may institute a proceeding for a writ of mandate to enforce the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. (Gov’t Code, § 7923.000.) “When it is alleged that public records have been improperly withheld, section 6259, subdivision (a) [i.e., the predecessor statute to Gov’t Code, § 7923.100] directs that ‘the court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records’ to disclose the records or show cause why they should not be produced.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Ct. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 622.)

At the hearing on this matter, the Court will determine if it should set an Order to Show Cause as to why the Police Department should not disclose the requested body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records. If the Order to Show Cause is set, the hearing on the petition will be CONTINUED to May 7, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, and the Court will set a briefing schedule for the Order to Show Cause.

PR-24-000047 - In the Matter of the A & T 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST - Petitioner Tina Marie Silva's Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court will discuss this matter with the parties. 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-23-001506 - DOE, JOHN vs STANISLAUS COUNTY - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff John Doe's Deposition and Request for Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-24-000958 - SINGH, HARPREET vs LEON, GABINA - Plaintiff Harpreet Singh's Motion to Continue the Trial Date and Reopen Non-Expert Discovery Against Defendant Gabina Leon for A Limited Purpose - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery for the limited proceedings described in the papers, i.e., the deposition of Ms. Osborne or another representative of Meridian MedLegal Management and the further deposition of Dr. Fox with regard to his opinions arising out of the defense expert’s testimony. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

CV-25-006991 - VELEZ, PEDRO vs SILVA INJURY LAW - a) Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint -  SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend; SUSTAINED, in part, without leave to amend; OVERRULED, in part; b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint - DENIED, as MOOT.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s fraud-based claims (Third, Fourth, and Seventh Causes of Action) are insufficiently alleged in the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(e).) The law requires specificity of pleading with regard to every element of the subject causes of action, in order to allow the defendants to fully understand the nature of the charges made. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184; Tarmann v. State Farm (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)  Here, Defendants’ actions are alleged only in conclusory terms without describing the specific acts Plaintiff claims give rise to liability for each defendant.

Likewise, with regard to the Fifth Cause of Action for Conversion, the allegations are insufficient to support the subject claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The law requires the plaintiff to allege a specific, identifiable sum where money is the subject of conversion. (Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1151; McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491.) In addition, the pleading again fails to allege which Defendant(s) committed the acts giving rise to liability under this claim.

Leave to amend is GRANTED with regard to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of Action, above. Plaintiff shall submit his Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to properly state his Sixth Cause of Action for “Forgery,” as the law does not recognize an independent civil cause of action in this regard.   Therefore, leave to amend is DENIED as to this claim.

Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged his First and Second Causes of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Professional Negligence and that such claims are not duplicative or defectively uncertain on the face of the pleading. Therefore, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to those claims.

b) The Motion to Strike is MOOT, in view of the Court’s ruling on the demurrer, above.

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

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

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-26-000091 - HACKLER RENTALS LLC vs STUEVE, ROBERT - Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request to Set Case for Trial - HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000102 - HACKLER RENTALS LLC vs STUEVE, ROBERT - Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request to Set Case for Trial - HEARING REQUIRED.