Civil Tentative Rulings

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.

March 28, 2023

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

 

 

CV-22-000072 – OROZCO, JESUS ARNA vs METRO INVESTMENTS GROUP INC – Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiffs to Request for Production of Documents – HEARING REQUIRED.

 

The Court intends to GRANT the motion and is likely but not certain to impose sanctions. Plaintiff appears to concede that the rent payments are a potential issue in this case, and Defendants are entitled to them.

 

The Court notes that it finds the initial objections thereto to be meritless. Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the payment of rent were always case-relevant and Defendants were entitled to them.

 

If these items have still not been provided, the Court will have questions. 

 

 

CV-22-003137 – WELLS FARGO NA vs RODRIGUEZ, ROBERT – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – DENIED. 

 

Defendant has not shown that he has served plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., with the moving papers.  Also, the defendant has not attached a copy of his proposed answer to the moving papers, and he has not shown any of the grounds for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), which are mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 

 

 

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

 

 

CV-21-003493 – UGH I LLC vs RAGAN, KEELY – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Judgment and Recall or Quash and Writs – GRANTED. 

 

The Judgment is vacated and the default is set aside.  The defendant shall have 30 days to file her Answer to the Complaint.  The Answer is to be filed and served by no later than April 27, 2023.

 

CCP Section 473(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

 

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.
 

The Motion for relief was timely, and defendant has provided a copy of her proposed Answer. 

The Summons was issued 7/7/21, setting the matter for court trial on 7/8/22.

 

There was no service by the 7/8/22 hearing date, nor by the continued date of 11/4/22.

 

The defendant wasn’t served until 11/7/22, 16 months after the issuance of the Summons.

 

The defendant relied on the fact that the 7/8/22 court trial date had passed when she was served in November of 2022.  While her belief that she did not need to respond to the Complaint is incorrect, the Court finds that it is a reasonable mistake.

 

 

CV-22-005375 – WESTERN SURETY COMPANY vs BAKTIARNEJAD, JAHANBAKHSH – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder; for discharge of stakeholder – GRANTED. 

 

Plaintiff is discharged from all liability to all claimants in this interpleader action with reference to Bond No. 14553529 issued on behalf of ANV Contractors, Inc., upon deposit of the sum of $15,000.00, less $2,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs which the Court is awarding to plaintiff.  Upon the deposit of the sum of $13,000.00 with the Clerk of the Court, Bond No. 14553529 is exonerated and all parties to this action are restrained from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding in any other court in the State of California or any other jurisdiction, affecting the rights and obligations between the parties to Bond No. 14553529 until further order of this Court.

 

 

PR – 22-000540 – ESTATE OF HENNESSEY, JOHN – Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs – The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Elizabeth DiFazio’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees to Wednesday, April 19, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., to be heard with Carol Sue Hamilton’s Motion to Tax Costs.  Carol Sue Hamilton is authorized to file a response to Elizabeth DiFazio’s Reply Brief filed on March 8, 2023.  The response is limited to 10 pages and must be filed and served by no later than Wednesday, April 5, 2023.  No reply to the response is authorized. 

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

 

 

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 23***

 

 

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

 

 

CV-22-002565 – COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs GUTIERREZ, PAZ – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession – GRANTED.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirements for the grant of its application per Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410 et seq.

 

However, the Court also finds that the parties will benefit from additional time to find a comparable replacement dwelling for Defendant.

 

The Court further finds that the current status of the Project at this time will permit Defendant to remain in residence at her property until the end of August 2023.

 

The Court therefore delays the effectiveness of its order herein until August 31, 2023, contingent upon Defendant’s co-operation with Plaintiff to locate a comparable dwelling for Defendant.

 

This matter is continued to August 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

 

The parties shall submit a joint statement on the status of Defendant’s relocation no later than August 8, 2023.

 

 

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***