August 15, 2018

A A A
Civil Tentative Ruling Announcement
Print

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, COURT CALL MUST be notified AND the Clerk’s Office MUST also be notified before 4:00 p.m. TODAY.

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 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.

August 15, 2018

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie S. Silveira in Department 21:

 

2025950 – GODFREY, MARY E VS KANDALLU, NALINI – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Action for Failure to Comply with Court Order Compelling Discovery – DENIED, without prejudice at this time.  Before imposing a “terminating” sanction, Courts usually grant lesser sanctions: e.g., orders staying the action until Plaintiff complies, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if answers are not received by a specified date, often accompanied with costs and fees to the moving party. It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders that terminating sanctions are justified. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796 ; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604—discovery statutes evince an incremental approach, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with ultimate terminating sanction.  While the Court would normally impose a lesser monetary sanction in this matter, Defendant’s counsel did not include any information in his declaration filed in support of the motion which would allow the Court to impose one.  Based therefore, on what is in the Court’s file at this time, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff Mary E. Godfrey, once again, to provide full and complete responses, without objection, to the Defendant’s outstanding discovery – Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  Plaintiff’s responses to this discovery are due not later than October 1, 2018.  Plaintiff is also hereby informed that her continued failure to respond to the Defendant’s discovery and/or to contact the Defendant’s attorneys to discuss her case (since Plaintiff is now representing herself) and/or to hire a new attorney who should immediately contact Defendant’s attorneys, may ultimately result in the Court exercising its discretion to impose terminating sanctions and dismiss her case. 

 

 

2023719 – GREAL, GUVINDER VS HALLBOYER, KATHRYN – Defendant Kathryn Hallboyer, MD’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Willful Disobedience of Court Order to Provide Discovery - MOOT.  Plaintiffs filed a dismissal with prejudice on August 2, 2018.

 

 

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

 

2016536 – SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA VS. JSBM INC. – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - GRANTED. Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment.  While Defendants raised the issue of delay, they failed to demonstrate the required element of prejudice resulting therefrom.  Therefore, Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file the Fourth Amended Complaint, which shall consist of a finalized version of the proposed amended pleading they submitted in connection with the instant motion. 

 

2023288 – SPINDOLA, GARBRIELA VS. SIMBA PROPERTIES INC. – HEARING REQUIRED. It appears to the Court that the parties have agreed to Darrell Champion, Esq. as mediator and that Defendant remains willing to proceed to mediation. Therefore, the Court orders the matter to mediation with Mr. Champion. In view of the parties’ demonstrated difficulties in securing a mutually agreeable date, the Court instructs that defense counsel shall confirm Mr. Champion’s availability through the end of October prior to the hearing of this matter and that both counsel shall appear in court to select and confirm a date certain at the time of the hearing.

CV-18-000190 – IN RE: 819 BADGLEY DRIVE, MODESTO CALIFORNIA 95350 – Petition on Claims on Deposited Surplus Funds from Trustee’s Sale – The Court orders a HEARING on claims to deposited surplus funds from the trustee’s sale of 819 Badgley Drive, Modesto, CA 95350.  The Court notes, however, that no claims have been submitted to date.

 

 

9000178 – MORRISON, ELIZABETH VS. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS -  Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to September 13, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

 

Based on the Court’s review of the Joint Status Report, it appears that the parties are working toward a resolution of the disputed issues and are amenable to a continuance of this matter to allow them additional time to meet and confer in good faith.  Therefore, the matter is continued and the parties are instructed to file a Joint Status Statement no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing date.  The Joint Status Statement should provide the current status of the parties’ further efforts to meet and confer. If necessary, Plaintiffs shall also provide an amended Separate Statement of Disputed Discovery identifying only those responses remaining in dispute. 

 

 

2026777 – MANSON,STEPHANIE VS. GARDEN CITY HEALTHCARE CENTER – a) Defendant Sutter Visiting Nurses Association and Hospice’s Demurrer Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint  b) Defendant Sutter Visiting Nurses Association and Hospice’s Motion to Strike Second Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint –

 

a) OVERRULED, in part; SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend. The Court finds that the First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse/Neglect (which appears to be mislabeled as the “Second” Cause of Action) against the moving defendant, when liberally construed, alleges facts sufficient to plead the subject cause of action.  Therefore, the Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First Cause of Action.

 

The Court finds that the Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e)  Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts establishing that they were present and witnessed alleged negligence by the moving defendant and were then aware that such negligence was causing harm to the decedent.  (Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 668.) Therefore, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the Fifth Cause of Action; Plaintiffs shall file an amended pleading within 20 days. 

 

Further, the Court observes that moving defendant’s notice is deficient in that no statutory grounds for demurrer are identified. (Code Civ. Proc. §1010; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1110(a).)  Defendant is cautioned to observe the rules for law and motion practice in the future.

 

b) GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part. The Court finds that the Motion to Strike should be GRANTED as to the request for treble damages under the provisions of Civ. Code §3345.  The Court finds no authority for application of that section in the instant context.  The motion is DENIED as to all remaining grounds.

 

Finally, the Court observes that the moving defendant’s Notice of Motion does not comply with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1322(a).  While not specifically identified in the moving papers, it appears to the Court that the portions of the Second Amended Complaint which are affected by the Court’s ruling are Paragraph 20 under the Second [sic] Cause of Action against the moving defendant and Item #3 in the Prayer for Damages.  Counsel is cautioned to observe the statutory requirements for law and motion practice in the future.

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

 

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 23***

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:

 

2027082 – SKITTONE ALMOND SHELLER INC VS. LORENZO, GARY – Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment – DENIED. Based on the Court’s review of the file and Defendant’s opposition, Plaintiff has not established the probable validity of its claim.

 

 

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 for Department 19***