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
March 19, 2024
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 are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
2027727 – CAPITAL ONE BANK USA NA vs ANDERSON, CHARLOTTE L – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Setting Aside and Vacating its Prior Order of Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties – GRANTED, and unopposed.
Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment according to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s order of dismissal signed on 4-12-2019 (filed 4-16-2019), in which the Court agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
Consequently, the motion is granted. The order of dismissal is vacated, and the dismissal is set aside. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, the Court enters judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the total amount of $4,391.03, which represents the principal sum of $4,705.26, plus costs of $635.77, less $950.00 for payments made to date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a); DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1140, 1156.)
The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff with a revision to the total in the judgment. (The total requested judgment does not include the $60 filing fee for this motion, even though it was itemized in line 6 of the proposed judgment.)
PR-23-000289 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST – Respondent’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records and for Monetary Sanctions against Petitioner and her Counsel of Record – DENIED as MOOT.
Petitioner’s counsel offered to withdraw the subpoena at issue. The Court’s position is that the motion to quash is therefore MOOT. The only remaining dispute is over monetary sanctions. Moving Party’s request for sanctions against Responding Party and her counsel is DENIED. Responding Party’s counsel offers a valid reason why he neglected to promptly send a follow-up letter or further communicate in January. Moving Party’s counsel then failed to contact opposing counsel and give a firm deadline for filing the motion to quash. Had Moving Party’s counsel simply picked up the phone and called opposing counsel, this motion could have been avoided.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-22-004120 – AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY vs MCLAUGHLIN, ROBERT DANIEL, JR – Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement – GRANTED, and unopposed.
Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties, which contemplated the Court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement herein.
Therefore, the motion is granted. The dismissal shall be set aside, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for the total amount of $4,375.77, which represents the principal amount ($4,940.03) and agreed costs ($313.79), less payments made to date ($787.05).
The Court will sign the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-23-006665 – BANUELOS, FRANK vs GARNER, LAURA – a) Plaintiff’s ANTI-SLAPP Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint – GRANTED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee – DENIED, without prejudice.
(a)The Court finds that the moving Cross-Defendant has met the initial burden of demonstrating that portions of the Cross-Complainant’s breach of contract claim arise out of protected activity, i.e. the filing of the instant lawsuit. The burden then shifts to Cross-Complainant to demonstrate the probability that she will prevail on the merits of the subject cause of action as it relates to the protected activity. The Court finds that the application of the litigation privilege prevents Cross-Complainant from relying on the filing of the instant action as the basis for her breach of contract claim; therefore, she is unable to meet her burden on the instant motion. As a result, the Court finds that the following material shall be stricken from the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract contained within the Cross-Complaint:
Para. BC2: “and by initiating partition proceedings”
Para. BC4: “by being forced to defend against partition proceedings and to incur attorney’s fees and costs in doing so.”
In light of the above ruling, Cross-Defendant is entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1).) However, the Court requires more information with regard to the fee request. Specifically, the Court notes that Cross-Defendant submits 2 attorney declarations, which include identical requests for “anticipated time” in connection with the instant motion. Cross-Defendant shall submit supplemental declarations from his counsel describing their actual time expended in this regard and the nature of the work performed on the “anticipated” tasks. Such supplemental declarations shall be submitted no later than March 29, 2024.
(b) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate recordation of lis pendens in conjunction with his Complaint, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 872.250(a). Plaintiff is instructed to complete that requirement and submit proof to the Court, with all future proceedings stayed until this step is accomplished. (Code Civ. Proc. § 872.250(c).)
With regard to the instant motion, the Court finds that a factual dispute exists as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to partition, based on Defendant’s assertion of waiver. In addition, the Court is unconvinced that other equitable defenses are not available to Defendant in this situation, as Plaintiff contends. Therefore, the motion is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to renew his request after discovery has been conducted.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 24***
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:
UD-24-000070 – TIVOLI BOARDWALK LLC vs TRYON, SHANNON – Defendants’ Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.
UD-24-000222 – WILTSE, SUSAN vs MUJAIMIN, BASIR – Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons – HEARING REQUIRED.