December 12, 2025

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

CV-25-002797 – MARTINEZ, ARTURO vs CONTRERAS, MIGUEL – a) Defendant’s Miguel Contreras and Maria Contreras’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant’s Miguel Contreras and Maria Contreras’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant’s Miguel Contreras and Maria Contreras’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED.

a-c) The Court makes the following observations:

Plaintiff’s counsel complains of a “minor time dispute,” but provides no evidence of excusable mistake, instead asserting that the fact that responses were given shows this. It does not.

Further, the fact that the opposition was filed extremely late adds evidence that this is a pattern and practice. The Court is also not persuaded that the meet and confer efforts were deficient.

But there is another problem: The Separate Statements include discussions of all the discovery, not just the contested items. The Court declines Defendants’ invitation to search through the Separate Statements to locate the relevant issues. (See, for instance Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4^th 471.)

The Court requires the assistance of the parties to determine a path forward.

CV-25-005913 – JRP REALTY GROUP vs GARCHA, HARINDER SINGH – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant Harinder Singh Garcha’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED.

a) Given the somewhat conflicting assertions, the Court is inclined to set an evidentiary hearing.

b) The Court is likely to continue the matter to be heard with the Motion to Disqualify. 

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

CV-21-001363 – NARANJO, JOSHUA vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC – Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint – CONTINUED to December 17, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to December 17, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

CV-24-007813 – HENRY, STEPHEN vs GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Emmanuel Flores Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $6,300.00 – CONTINUED to January 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Plaintiff Stephen Henry’s Motion to Compel Defendant Georgia-Pacific’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $17,400.00 – CONTINUED to January 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b)

The motion directed to Defendant Flores was untimely filed only 14 court days before the hearing. And the motions may well be untimely overall since they were filed more than 45 days after the responses were provided; the Court has not yet decided. What the Court has decided is that the meet-and-confer process was not properly completed. “[I]t is a ‘central precept’ of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing.’ [Citation.]” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) “A self-executing discovery system is ‘one that operates without judicial involvement.’ [Citation.]” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.) The meet-and-confer process is a central component of that self-executing system.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES these matters to January 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference no later than December 30, 2025. The parties are further ordered to then file a joint statement by January 5, 2026, describing the efforts to meet-and-confer and any narrowing of the issues. The Court strongly encourages the parties to informally resolve this dispute.

PR-21-000344 – ESTATE OF REYES, RUDOLPH – Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice.

According to the declaration filed in support of the motion, the client was personally served, and a proof of service would be filed at least five court days before the hearing. However, the Court was unable to locate a proof of service in the file showing service on the client. The proof of service concurrently filed with the motion only indicates service by mail on the other two parties to these proceedings. Consequently, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(c).)

PR-24-001121 – IN THE MATTER OF THE MARIA A GONZALES 2016 IRREVOCABLE TRUST – a) Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Petitioner’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – HEARING REQUIRED.

a - b) The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions by Attorney Sarah Cullen of Geremia & Cullen PC and Attorney Michael Hackard of Hackard Law APLC to be relieved as counsel for Petitioner Victor Gonzalez. However, given the client’s opposition to the motions, the Court will give him an opportunity to be heard.

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

CV-25-006991 – VELEZ, PEDRO vs SILVA INJURY LAW – a) Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint to Plaintiff Pedro Velez – HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint – HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP 128.7 – HEARING REQUIRED.

a) The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the demurrer in its entirety, on the grounds that the pleadings fail to sufficiently allege the referenced causes of action and are, in any case, so unintelligible as to effectively prevent Defendants from ascertaining what they are being asked to respond to. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e),(f).)  Plaintiff shall submit his First Amended Complaint within 20 days.

In addition, Plaintiff is cautioned to review and observe the applicable statutes and rules of court for law and motion proceedings. California law is unequivocal: A self-represented party is entitled to no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys and must follow the correct rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

b) The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT, in view of the intended ruling on the demurrer, above.

c) The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion based on Plaintiff’s demonstrated improper conduct in submitting a false court order as support for certain of the claims made in his pleadings. This conduct violates Plaintiff’s certification that his Complaint is not submitted for an improper purpose and that the allegations and other factual contentions therein have evidentiary support. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b).)  However, the Court is not convinced that dismissal of the action is warranted at this stage and intends to hear from the parties as to appropriate alternative sanctions consistent with the purpose of the statute.

CV-24-007835 – ZHANG, WENJUN vs SUNRISE MHC LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Sunrise Village MHC LLC – DROPPED in view of the Court’s order on 12-3-25 granting a stay of proceedings in this action pending the outcome of the related appeal(s). 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-24-002670 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA vs VENTURA, ANTONIO – a) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things – GRANTED, unopposed. b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions – GRANTED, unopposed. c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One – GRANTED, unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Respondent Antonio Ventura failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Requests for Inspection served on Respondent on July 16, 2025, without substantial justification. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a) and (b))

Any objections by Respondent to said Requests for Inspection are accordingly waived. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).

Respondent is accordingly hereby ordered to provide responsive documents to said Requests for Production within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order.

b) The Court finds that Respondent Antonio Ventura failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s Request to Deem Admissions Admitted propounded on July 16, 2025, or at all without substantial justification.

Accordingly, any objection to said Requests for Admissions , including ones based on privilege or on the protection for work product are hereby waived and the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in said Requests for Admission are deemed admitted. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 (a)).

c) The Court finds that Respondent Antonio Ventura failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, served on Respondent on July 16. 2025, without substantial justification.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b)).

Accordingly, all objections to said Form Interrogatories by Respondent including ones based on privilege or work product are hereby waived. (CCP §§2030.290(a) and (b); 2031.300(a).)

Respondent is hereby ordered to provide verified Code compliant responses to said discovery within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order.

CV-25-004954 – RED TARGET LLC vs MONKHOUSE, SUSAN L – Defendant’s Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of pleadings and addresses issues of law. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994).

Plaintiff’s Complaint was not timely served. However, the remedy for a failure to timely serve a complaint is for an Order to Show Cause to be issued by the Court as to why sanctions should not be issued.(CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.110 (f)).

The Court finds that the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are uncertain as to Defendant Susan Monkhouse individually and are also conclusory. (Civ Proc. Code §.430.10(f); Probate Code § 9606; Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC, (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1230 ;Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v. Regents of Univ. of California, (2020) 51 Cal. App. 5th 226).

To the extent that this uncertainty permeates all the causes of action in the Complaint, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth causes of action is hereby sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling.

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***