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
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 is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-24-006021 – IN RE L, A – Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights - CONTINUED to December 5, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
An amended petition was filed on October 31, 2024, less than 25 days before the continued hearing date. (See Ins. Code §§ 10139.2, 10139.5(f)(2).) The matter is therefore CONTINUED to December 5, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 22 so that timely notice can be given to all interested parties. Also, the Court notes that Exhibits C and D are still missing from the amended petition. If these documents cannot be obtained, then the Payee should sign a verified supplement stating so.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-23-005246 – IPFS CORPORATION vs LUCKY STAR LOGISTICS INC – Defendant’s Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice.
Proof of service is insufficient to establish notice to the corporate client, in that it appears the moving papers were not directed to an authorized agent or representative of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10 et seq.) A corporation can have knowledge only through its officers and agents . (See, e.g. Snyder v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 660, 664.)
In addition, the supporting declaration fails to describe efforts to obtain the client’s consent to a substitution of attorneys in the matter. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(c).) This information is particularly essential in the context of a corporate party, since a corporation cannot represent its own interests in litigation and must retain counsel. (Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (Sully-Miller Contracting Co.) (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.)
Additionally, the proposed order granting the motion should contain the following admonishment: “A corporation may participate in this action only through an attorney. A corporate party retains all the obligations of a litigant. Failure to hire an attorney may lead to an order striking the corporation’s pleadings and entering its default. A default may be followed by a default judgment against the corporation.” (See Urethane Foam Experts, Inc. v. Latimer (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 763, 766.)
CV-23-007276 – JP MORGAN CHASE BANK vs HAIDIR, TANIM G – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-24-004453 – PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC vs MALDONADO, JORGE – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted – GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-004738 – CHAVEZ, JUAN CARLOS PACHECO vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS – a) Defendant California Department of Transportation’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set one Dated July 12, 2024 – GRANTED. b) Defendant California Department of Transportation’s Motion to have Matters Deemed Admitted - GRANTED.
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendant’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories served on Plaintiff on July 12, 2024, or at all. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b))
Accordingly, any objections by Plaintiff to said discovery are hereby waived. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide responses to said Form Interrogatories, Set One without objections within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order. (CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).)
Defendant is awarded sanctions of $220.00 payable to Defendant’s Counsel within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and 2023.030(a)).
b) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on July 12, 2024. As a result, Defendants’ application to deem their Requests for Admissions (Set One) Admitted is hereby granted. (Code of Civil Procedure 2023.280)
CV-24-005398 – SALIDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT vs MARTINS FARM LP – a) Defendant Martins Farm, LP’s Motion to Strike Complaint Under California’s Anti-Slapp Law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc 425.16) - GRANTED. b) Defendant Martins Farm, LP’s Demurrer to Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - MOOT.
a) The Court finds that Defendant Martin Farms LP has met its initial burden of demonstrating that the claims asserted against it arise out of protected activity, Defendants right to petition and to free speech in connection with a public issue; notably ensuring that governmental agencies follow the law. Consequently, the burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability that he will prevail on the merits of the subject causes of action. (Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; Navellier v. Sletten, (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 88–89.; In re Episcopal Church Cases, (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 467; City of Cotati v. Cashman, (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69, 76; Bleavins v. Demarest (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1533: Sugarman v. Brown (2021) 73 Cal. App. 5th 152; Bishop v. The Bishop's Sch., (2022) 86 Cal. App. 5th 893, 907; Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., (2021)11 Cal. 5th 995).
The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks minimal merit on the basis that Plaintiff failed to follow the statutory outlined procedure in the Mello Roos Act for annexing property beyond the boundaries of the Community Facilities District which was established by Resolution No. 2010-08. (Gov’t Code § 53339 et seq; Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67); (Paredes v. Credit Consulting Services, Inc. (2022) 82 Cal .App. 5th 410, certiorari denied; Weeden v. Hoffman (2021) 70 Cal App 5th 269; Kirby v. Cnty. of Fresno, (2015) 42 Cal. App. 4th 940)
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden Therefore, the Court finds that the Complaint herein shall be stricken pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §425.16.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §452 (b) and (c)).
b) Based on the Court’s findings regarding Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion; namely that Plaintiff’s complaint implicates Defendant’s right to petition and or free speech on a matter of public importance, and lacks merit, Defendant’s demurrer is therefore moot.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
UD-24-001136 – MENDOZA. JAVIER vs FIGUEROA, JAVIER – Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.