May 21, 2025

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-19-006459 – PLASENCIA, JOSEPHINA vs VIERRA, BOBBY STEPHEN – Motion to Add Estate to Case – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court requires the parties’ assistance.

Preliminarily, the Objection to the Reply is mostly not that; it is essentially an unpermitted sur-reply. The Court is generally required to either strike new arguments in the reply (or in the Court’s own decision) or permit response. Because the Court has its own questions, the Court will defer on that issue.

The parties should anticipate the following questions:

1. Under Code Civ. Proc. sect. 573.310, the action must be commenced within five years. The current trial date is by agreement of the parties with a waiver of the five-year rule. The Estate has not waived the rule. Does the Court have the authority to bring in the Estate given the age of this case?
2. Does it matter when the current Defendant died? If the matter were set with a five-year waiver and the Defendant died a week before trial, how would that be legally distinguishable from the facts of this case?
3. Under Code Civ. Proc. sect. 583.210, the action must be served within three years. In this case, the service date would start later, but it appears that service was only made in the other case. Is this statute implicated in this case?
4. In the companion probate case, a hearing is set for June 10, 2025 on a motion to allow the claim. If I rule in this case based on the issues raised by the parties, would that be binding on J. Speiller?
5. If J. Speiller were to rule first on these issues, would that be binding on me?

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

CV-24-003147 – SOLIS, TARA vs SUTTER HEALTH – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One – GRANTED with clarification.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories—Employment, Set One, as to Defendant Sutter Health. Within 15 days, Defendant Sutter Health is to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 200.4, 201.5, 204.3, 204.4, 204.6, 204.7, 207.1, 209.2, and 211.1 that are full and complete.

To clarify, the Court agrees with Defendant that Defendant has not waived its objections. The Court further notes that the request to compel further responses in the notice of motion and motion did not include a request for the Court to deem objections waived. It appears that this phrase was inadvertently included in the conclusion of the memorandum.

Plaintiff did not request any sanctions in her notice of motion and motion, so none are awarded.

Plaintiff to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with the Court’s ruling.

CV-24-008419 – GUTIERREZ, ROBERTO vs NINO, ARTURO – Plaintiff’s Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings per CCP 438 – CONTINUED to June 12, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

These matters are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 12, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

CV-24-009325 – MITSOPOULAS, TOM vs CITY OF CERES – a) Defendant City of Ceres’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to June 13, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Defendant City of Ceres’ Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to June 13, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 13, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-24-000961 – RIVERA, MANUEL ARTURO vs LOPES, DANIEL – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Publication of Summons – GRANTED, and unopposed.

Cross-Defendant Abel Erellales shall be served by publication in The Stockton Record in compliance with the procedure set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(b) and Gov. Code § 6064.

CV-24-002399 – CHAVEZ, LEAH vs C&S DRAPERIES INC – a) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Leah Chavez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff in the Amount of $2,340.00 – DENIED, as MOOT; b) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Leah Chavez’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff in the Amount of $2,100.00 – DENIED, as MOOT.

a-b) These matters are MOOT, due to Plaintiff’s service of responses. The Court declines to award sanctions.

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

CV-19-000330 – ALAMEDA, RICHARD vs GENTRYS CUSTOM FARMING – Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial – DENIED.

The Court notes Defendant’s request for the Court to consider the date set beyond the 75-day jurisdictional deadline, as a clerical error. While the Court would be willing to do so, the Court is unable to do so based on the expiry of the mandatory, jurisdictional 75-day deadline for the Court to rule on this motion. (CCP § 660; Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc., (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1049 ; Dodge v. Superior Court, (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 513, 517).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is denied.

The Court’s Notice of Hearing on the Motion for New Trial is hereby corrected to reflect that it is Defendant’s not Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Move for a New Trial.

CV-23-003438 – ARTEAGA, SALVADOR RIVERA vs ALGHAZZI, WISSAM A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or in the Alternative Discovery and Evidence Sanctions – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that Defendant has not been co-operative in timely discharging his financial obligations for arbitration to proceed herein from as far back as August 2022 when Plaintiff initiated arbitration prior to filing this action, and in spite of the Court’s order of October 12, 2023, ordering the parties to arbitration.

The Court finds as a result that Defendant has been in material breach of the parties’ arbitration agreement entitling Plaintiff to monetary sanctions in the form of Plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred as a result of said breach. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1281.97, 1281.98, 1281.99). Plaintiff shall file a noticed motion for said fees.

The Court also finds that Defendant’s conduct has not been with substantial justification and further hereby imposes evidentiary sanctions and orders that Defendant is prohibited from conducting discovery in this action (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1281.97, 1281.98 and 1297.99; Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct. of San Bernardino Cnty., (2023), 91 Cal. App. 5th 1121 review denied (Aug. 16, 2023). 

CV-24-006512 – ASSAD, YAROUB vs LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY – Defendant Golden Memorial Insurance Services, Inc’s Joint Motion to Stay Action and Compel Arbitration – HEARING REQUIRED.

Based on the parties’ arguments and the unavoidable impact the determination of Plaintiff’s status as an employee or an independent contractor will have on the enforceability or otherwise of the arbitration provision in the parties’ Associate Sales Representative Agreement, the Court is inclined to bifurcate the issue of Plaintiff’s employment status while reserving the issue of arbitration. The parties may stipulate to said bifurcation, or the Court may order same sua sponte to permit discovery on the limited issue of Plaintiff’s employment status prior in order to rule thereon prior to ruling on the enforceability or otherwise of the parties’ arbitration agreement. (Civ. Proc. Code § 598 ). Counsel may be heard on the question of bifurcation.

The Court intends to schedule the bifurcated trial so as to allow reasonable time for discovery, if any, briefing, and hearing as a short cause matter. 

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 for Department 19***