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 rulings 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-22-003958 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs ABARCA, FRANCISCO J – a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions – DENIED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – DENIED; c) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One – DENIED.
a) DENIED. Petitioner’s Requests for Admission were served by mail to Respondent at “15931 Shell Court, Delhi, CA 95315”. As indicated in the Court’s June 10, 2025, ruling on the earlier motion to compel related to this discovery - it appears that address does not exist. Indeed, the proof of service on Respondent in this case indicates he was personally served at “15931 Shell Street, Delhi, CA 95315”. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Respondent received the discovery when it was mailed to him in November 2024. Because it appears that the discovery at issue was served on Respondent at a nonexistent address, the motion must be denied.
The proofs of service filed on September 12, 2025, do not cure this defect in service of the underlying discovery. A showing that the motion itself – accompanied by the discovery at issue – was served at the correct address does not fix the fact that the Court cannot compel a response where the propounding party fails to show that the discovery was properly served in the first instance. Accordingly, the motion is still DENIED.
b) DENIED. Petitioner’s Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things was served by mail to Respondent at “15931 Shell Court, Delhi, CA 95315”. As indicated in the Court’s June 10, 2025, ruling on the earlier motion to compel related to this discovery - it appears that address does not exist. Indeed, the proof of service on Respondent in this case indicates he was personally served at “15931 Shell Street, Delhi, CA 95315”. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Respondent received the discovery when it was mailed to him in November 2024. Because it appears that the discovery at issue was served on Respondent at a nonexistent address, the motion must be denied.
The proofs of service filed on September 12, 2025, do not cure this defect in service of the underlying discovery. A showing that the motion itself – accompanied by the discovery at issue – was served at the correct address does not fix the fact that the Court cannot compel a response where the propounding party fails to show that the discovery was properly served in the first instance. Accordingly, the motion is still DENIED.
c) DENIED. Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, were served by mail to Respondent at “15931 Shell Court, Delhi, CA 95315”. As indicated in the Court’s June 10, 2025, ruling on the earlier motion to compel related to this discovery - it appears that address does not exist. Indeed, the proof of service on Respondent in this case indicates he was personally served at “15931 Shell Street, Delhi, CA 95315”. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Respondent received the discovery when it was mailed to him in November 2024. Because it appears that the discovery at issue was served on Respondent at a nonexistent address, the motion must be denied.
The proofs of service filed on September 12, 2025, do not cure this defect in service of the underlying discovery. A showing that the motion itself – accompanied by the discovery at issue – was served at the correct address does not fix the fact that the Court cannot compel a response where the propounding party fails to show that the discovery was properly served in the first instance. Accordingly, the motion is still DENIED.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-25-003525 – ANDERSON, DERRICK vs DELMONTE FOODS INC – Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Derrick Anderson’s Complaint - DENIED, without prejudice.
Defendant’s proof of service contains insufficient information for the Court to determine that service was properly accomplished, particularly in view of the lack of response from Plaintiff. Specifically, the defense attests to electronic service, which requires the consent of a self-represented party, but fails to demonstrate a statutorily recognized form of such consent. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c).)
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-21-001167 – ELIZONDO, AARON vs KCB VENTURES INC – Defendant Directv, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to October 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.
The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings in this matter.
CV-23-001808 – COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs WINCENTSEN, SHIRLEY A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Determination re: Whether OID has Compensable Interest - GRANTED.
The Court finds Plaintiff may appropriately move the Court for the requested determination as a legal issue affecting the determination of compensation to OID. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1260.040).
The Court also finds Defendant OID’s Answer (contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement) fails to state the nature and extent of OID’s interest in the property taken by Plaintiff herein. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1250.320 (a)). The Court notes Civ. Proc. Code § 1250.230 does not authorize the participation of a person who fails to show they have an interest in the property sought to be taken and in order to participate in an eminent domain proceeding, a person must have a legal or equitable interest in the property described in the complaint. (County of San Benito v. Copper Mtn. Min. Co., (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 82).
The Court also finds that Defendant’s Answer denies any interest in the easement taken and this denial constitutes a judicial admission inconsistent with Defendant’s present position and removes the matter as an issue in the case. (Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary Sch. Dist., (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 150, 314). Plaintiff’s motion may therefore be granted on this basis also.
Nevertheless, addressing the merits, an irrigation district is a public corporation or agency and has only such powers as are given to it by the Legislature. Assessments collected by an irrigation district are public funds and not private property of the district. (Allen v. Hussey, (1950)101 Cal. App. 2d 457). However, eminent domain proceedings involve the taking of private property for public use, and the complaint must show that the use is authorized by law and necessary for public purposes. (Stratford Irr. Dist. v. Empire Water Co.,(1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 61). Assessment powers, as a legislative grant of authority, do not fall within the scope of "property" that can be taken under eminent domain in California. The Court therefore finds Defendant’s ability to exercise its assessment powers is not capable of being “taken” in an eminent domain proceeding and, as a result, Defendant does not have a compensable interest in the easement taken by Plaintiff herein.
The Court additionally finds Plaintiff does not own the property at issue that would exempt it from property taxation or special assessments. (California Constitution Article XIII, section 3, subdivision (b)).
Furthermore, the assessments sought by OID are not capital facilities fees and Plaintiff is not a public service user within the meaning of Gov't Code §§ 54999 et seq.
Additionally, the compensation paid to the property owners for the taking herein was intended to compensate them for all claims arising from the taking including the claims OID attempts to assert on the owners’ behalf. Defendant may not make claims for future assessment fees on behalf of these owners.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED.
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***