May 16, 2025

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-20-001252 – ZAGARIS, KAY vs GROESBECK, BERNARD W – Plaintiff’s Motion to Determination of Property Rights Pursuant to Probate Code, 850 – DENIED.

For the reasons stated in the opposition filed by Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Jeffrey Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen on May 2, 2025, and joined by Defendant Farmers Insurance Group Federal Credit Union on May 8, 2025 (collectively, “Opposing Parties”), the motion is DENIED.

Specifically, there is no such thing as a motion for determination of property rights under Probate Code § 850. Rather, Probate Code § 850 provides for the filing of a petition. A petition and a motion are not the same thing; the former is a pleading that typically initiates an action, whereas the latter is a specific request for relief that is filed under the umbrella of a pleading. A probate petition under § 850 and a civil motion also have very different notice requirements. (Compare Prob. Code, § 851 with Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).)

Moreover, a § 850 petition is unique to the probate court. As explained in Parker v. Schwarcz (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 418, 427, “The origins of section 850 trace back to the probate court's historic lack of power to determine claims adverse to the properties of an estate when asserted by a stranger to the estate, that is, a person not in privity with the probate proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) “Recent cases have observed that ‘ “[t]he statutory scheme’s purpose is to effect a conveyance or transfer of property belonging to a decedent or a trust or another person under specified circumstances, to grant any appropriate relief to carry out the decedent’s [or settlor’s] intent, and to prevent looting of ... estates. [Citations.] It provides the probate court with a mechanism to determine rights in property belonging to a decedent or to someone else.” ’ [Citations.]” (Id., at p. 429 [emphasis added].)

This distinction between a probate and civil action is underlined by Probate Code § 854, which states in relevant part, “If a civil action is pending with respect to the subject matter of a petition filed pursuant to this chapter this part[sic] and jurisdiction has been obtained in the court where the civil action is pending prior to the filing of the petition, upon request of any party to the civil action, the court shall abate the petition until the conclusion of the civil action. ***”

Because the current papers were filed as a motion within the civil action and not as a separate probate pleading, the Court does not find it necessary to consider the issue of abatement, but rather, denies the motion outright as procedurally infirm.

CV-21-003878 – SALCIDOCEJA, ALEXIS vs MADRUGA ALVES CAR WASH INC – Compliance Hearing - DROPPED.

The Court has reviewed and signed the stipulation. In light of the signed stipulation, the hearing on this matter is MOOT.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 384.5, the Court directs the clerk to transmit to the Judicial Council a copy of the judgment and the final stipulation.

CV-22-005389 – PONCE, NORMA vs SUPHERB FARMS - Compliance Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 384 – CONTINUED to July 10, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The Court has reviewed the declaration filed by the Settlement Administrator on May 7, 2025. As the check-cashing period had not yet expired at the time the declaration was executed, and the Settlement Administrator has until June 13, 2025, to distribute any unclaimed funds to the State Controller’s Office, this matter is CONTINUED to Thursday, July 10, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for a final declaration confirming the completion of the terms of the agreement. The Settlement Administrator is directed to file a new declaration at least five court days before the continued hearing date.

CV-23-003194 – GODINEZ, JOSE vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS – Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds 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. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with rule 3.769(c) of the California Rules of Court. The class counsel, class representatives, and settlement administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court finds that the Class Notice provides sufficient notice of the terms of the settlement and the option to opt out of the settlement, but there are some typographical errors that need to be corrected, including the following:

      - The case number needs to be corrected (1) in the first title line of the notice; (2) in Item No. 1 under “BASIC INFORMATION” in the notice; (3) in the caption of the opt-out notice; and (4) in the body of the opt-out notice. It should be “CV-23-003194,” not “CIV-23-003194.”

     - “EMPLOEES” in the “ATTENTION” paragraph of the notice needs to be corrected.

Class Counsel is directed to re-read the notice and correct any other typographical errors found therein.

The Court completes the following dates in the schedule:

     - On or before June 9, 2025, Defendant is to provide the Class Information to the Settlement Administrator.

     - On or before June 19, 2025, the Settlement Administrator is to mail the Class Notice to all Class Members.

The Court finds rest of the schedule set forth in the settlement agreement acceptable. The Court intends to sign the proposed order.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 23, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22 of this Court. Briefs in support of final approval shall be filed and served no later than September 25, 2025. 

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

CV-24-006918 – SAUREZ, ROXANA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) – DENIED, as MOOT, in view of Defendant’s service of verified responses to the subject discovery.

CV-25-001211 – TRUIST BANK vs CASTANEDA, VINCE – Defendant’s Motion to Quash the Service Summons - DENIED, without prejudice.

No proof of service on Plaintiff’s counsel has been submitted.

UD-25-000116 – FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION vs JACKSON, MARSHA – Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.

Based on the papers submitted, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion. Plaintiff has not clearly articulated the specific grounds for her request. To the extent that she is claiming lack  of valid service, which implicates the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d), Defendant fails to submit evidence overcoming the presumption of proper service based on the declaration of the registered process server. (Evid. Code § 647.) To the extent Defendant purports to seek relief pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), the motion fails to submit evidence constituting grounds for relief under that section.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-21-002479 – LEVELIT INSTALLATIONS GROUP INC vs SOLIS, RICHARD – Defendant’s Motion to Temporarily Stay Enforcement of Final Judgment Pending Appeal Pursuant to Code CIV. Proc. 918 - HEARING REQUIRED.

The court is inclined to find that Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if they are denied the opportunity to either sell or leverage AST to either pay the judgment debt of $12.5 million or support the required undertaking for an appeal.

The Court is further inclined to find that the continued operation of AST in the interim also protects Plaintiff’s interest in the Judgment Debt and their ability to recover said debt.

The Court is therefore inclined to grant the motion and impose a stay on the enforcement of said Judgment for a period not exceeding ten (10)  days beyond the last date on which a notice of appeal could be filed. (Civ. Proc. Code § 918; Cal Rule of Court Rule 8.104; (Sarkany v. West (2022) 82 Cal. App. 5th 801, 809, 810).

The Court will also address issued with the Proposed Judgment.

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***