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:
CV-22-006059 – VERA, TOMAS A ENRIQUEZ vs CENTRAL HEATING AND COOLING INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Paga Action Settlement – GRANTED.
The Court is satisfied, based on the supplemental declaration submitted by class counsel, that the parties have now allowed for a procedure by which class members may challenge the work week calculations, if necessary.
Therefore, the Court rules as follows:
The alleged statutory and civil penalties concern various wage and hour claims, including meal and rest period violations, minimum and overtime wage violations, wage-statement violations, failure to timely pay wages during employment and at termination, failure to maintain accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to disclose material terms at the time of hire, a UCL claim and a claim for PAGA penalties. The subject class consists of current and former non-exempt employees of D in California between 12-30-18 and the date of preliminary approval; the aggrieved employees for purposes of the PAGA claim are those employed by D between 12-30-21 and the date of preliminary approval. It is estimated that there are 301 class members.
The total gross settlement amount contemplated herein is $414,410.00. The settlement is non-reversionary, and no claim forms are required. The motion seeks approval of the following payments from the gross settlement:
Fees and costs of Phoenix Settlement Administrators: $8,950
Payment to Class Representative: $10,000
Class counsel’s attorney’s fees: $144,949 (35% of gross settlement amount)
Class counsel’s costs: up to $12,000
PAGA payment: $41,414 (split 25%/75% between class members and LWDA)
The motion, and counsel’s supporting declaration explain the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the class certification issues in sufficiently specific terms to assess the matter. On a preliminary basis, the Court finds the agreement to be fair, adequate, and falls within the range of reasonableness, and the Court therefore deems it to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final approval hearing.
In addition, good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines:
Defendant provides Settlement Class Member List to the Settlement Administrator: April 5, 2024.
Settlement Administrator mails notice and request for exclusion forms: April 15, 2024.
Objection and exclusion deadline (including work weeks calculation disputes): June 3, 2024.
Settlement Administrator to send list of requests for exclusion: June 10, 2024.
The Court sets the hearing for final settlement approval for July 10, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, with filings due by June 10, 2024.
CV-23-000984 – BARKER, CAROLYN A vs THOMSON, MICHELLE – Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.
A moving party on summary judgment bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. [Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826]. If the moving party carries this burden, it causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subject to its own burden of production to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. [Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850; see also Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1092.
This case comes down to one simple question: Does Plaintiff have standing to bring this wrongful death claim and the associated negligence claim? In this case, Plaintiff and the decedent in a fatal vehicle collision involving Defendant were in a long-term relationship. She brings this wrongful death claim.
Plaintiff and decedent were never lawfully married. (UMF 1). Plaintiff was aware of this. (UMF 2). Plaintiff was not a registered domestic partner of decedent. (UMF 3.)
Plaintiff was not at the scene of the collision. (UMF 7.)
Defendant therefore meets her initial burden. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 377.60, only certain people may bring a lawsuit. Plaintiff does not appear to be any of those people.
Plaintiff’s response does not respond to any UMF’s and does not include any additional material facts. Many cases support “The Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication,” which is that if it is not in the separate statement, it does not exist. (City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228.)
Under the outlier reasoning of San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308 – which rejects The Golden Rule instead giving the Court options – the Court could decide to consider issues not raised in the Separate Statements. Given the simplicity of this case, the lack of a challenge in the reply brief to this procedural issue, and the lack of prejudice to Defendant, the Court considers the evidence and argument made by Plaintiff in its entirety.
Which is this: Plaintiff “truly believes” that she is currently married to the decedent, and that the decedent was her husband at the time of his death. (Plaintiff’s declaration, paragraphs 4 and 6.)
Even if this declaration is true, this does not make Plaintiff a putative spouse. There was no assertion of a void or voidable marriage that occurred. Plaintiff’s reliance on Hazelwood v. Hazelwood (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 693 is misplaced; there is no rule that a romantic relationship grants standing. There is no showing that Plaintiff reasonably believed she was married; further her prior testimony at deposition is binding on her.
The Court considered but rejected putting this case over for potential sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. section 128.7 for Plaintiff’s declaration, given her testimony in deposition that she did not want to marry the decedent due to his financial issues. She testified that she specifically told a friend that she was not married to him at the time of his death.
Her deposition testimony is quite clear that she was not a spouse or putative spouse, and her now-asserted belief that she was married appears to be fabricated. Counsel and Plaintiff are cautioned that this contradictory testimony, all under oath, concerns the court.
CV-23-000252 – KNOX, CHERYLL vs DON PEDRO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial – DROPPED, at the request of the moving parties.
CV-23-005339 – G3 ENTERPRISES INC vs MYKA CELLARS INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Enforcing Settlement Agreement and Entry of Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the stipulated settlement agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the motion is granted and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor against Myka Cellars, Inc. and MEWG, Inc. for the total amount of $297,952.50, which represents the principal amount of the debt ($290,000), plus interest from the date of default to 3-31-24 ($6,380) and Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs ($1,572.50) incurred in connection with the instant motion, as provided in the parties’ agreement.
The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 22***
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
CV-22-003153 – FRENCH, RONALD vs TENET HEALTHCARE CORP – Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.
The Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement to judgment herein; the burden then shifts to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).)
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in this regard, as he has failed to submit admissible evidence of facts upon which his expert’s opinions are based.(Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735.) Although an expert may properly rely on hearsay in forming his opinion, he may not relate the out-of-court statements of another as independent proof of the subject fact. (Id., at 742-743.) Therefore, the opinions stated in Dr. Fugaro’s declaration lack foundation and are inadmissible herein.
The Court rules on Defendant’s Objections to Evidence as follows: No. 1-OVERRULED; No. 2-15 - SUSTAINED as to lack of foundation, speculation, and hearsay; 16 - SUSTAINED on the grounds stated; No. 17-18 - SUSTAINED as to relevance.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-23-001941 – MUNOZ, OLIVIA vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT – Defendant’s Motion to Seal Court Records - MOOT
In view of the Court’s order of 1/4/24 granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, this motion is now moot.
UD-23-001338 – NOLASCO, MANUEL OVIDIO FUENTES vs ESQUIVEL, JUDITH – Demurrer - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ demurrer does not demonstrate proof of service on Defendants. Accordingly, this matter is continued on the Court’s own motion so that Defendants may be served with said opposition and that Defendants may have an opportunity to reply said opposition.
This matter is accordingly continued to April 11, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
Plaintiff’s opposition shall be served no later than the close of business on Friday March 29, 2024. Defendants’ reply shall be filed and served no later than the close of business on Friday April 5, 2024.
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***