August 20, 2017

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, 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 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 3.21 (b) 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 18, 2017



The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Department 21:



2019799 – KS GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LLC VS. THAKUR, ANJANI – Cross-Defendants Joseph Varni, Rahat Hussein, and KS Golden State Properties LLC’s Demurrers to Second Amended Cross-Complaint – DROPPED at the request of the moving parties pursuant to notice received by the Court on July 31, 2017 and August 3, 2017.



618908 – FRANKLIN CREDIT VS. MENZIES, ERROL – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil of Procedure § 473(d) – DENIED.  Defendant relies upon Code of Civil of Procedure § 473(d).  A motion for relief from a default judgment which is valid on its face but void for improper service is governed by analogy to Code of Civil Procedures § 473.5 (relief for lack of actual notice).  Therefore, in this case (where the judgment is valid on its face) relief must be sought no later than 2 years after entry of the default judgment.  As it is over nine (9) years later, Defendant’s direct attack on the default judgment must be denied.



2016170 – CASTRO, CARMEL VS. SOUTHERN, MARK EDWARD – Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED without prejudice for failure to serve Plaintiffs with a  copy of the proposed order relieving counsel in compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d).



The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:



2019616 – FOWLKES, BRIAN VS. CITY OF TURLOCK – Defendant City of Turlock’s Motion for Summary Judgment - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to September 22, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.  The pleadings limit the scope of the issues that are considered material upon summary judgment.  Where it appears that a defendant’s motion for summary judgment has merit and may be granted on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint is “legally insufficient”, and where the Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion indicates that the Plaintiff could amend the Complaint to allege facts which would render the Complaint “legally sufficient”, the Court should give the Plaintiff an opportunity to so amend before entering judgment.  See e.g. Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654. 



2023648 – DAVISON, MALCOLM VS. ENGLISH OAKS CONVALESCENT AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL a) Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint  are DROPPED at request of moving party.



2023057 – STANISLAUS CREDIT CONTROL SERVICE, INC. VS. GRADFORD, JERRY ANN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order that Matters in Requests for Admissions be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED.  The requests are deemed ADMITTED.



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



2020399 – CARRANZA, DANIEL VS. DUMAS, MICHAEL E. – Defendant’s Demurrers to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint – OVERRULED, in their entirety.  Defendants shall file an Answer to the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint not later than August 28, 2017.



2025240 – HORNSEY, CHASE VS. LEV, GARY – Respondent Gary Lev’s Motion to Set Aside Civil Harassment Restraining Order – DENIED without prejudice.  A motion to terminate a restraining order brought by someone other than the protected person must be personally served on the protected person.  Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 (j)(3).



9000174 – GARCIA, ALMA VS. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS – Plaintiff Alma Garcia’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions – The motion of Plaintiff Alma Garcia to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED in part, and conditionally GRANTED in part, subject to further hearing after notice and an opportunity to be heard is given to those nonparties who are affected by this motion. 


The motion is GRANTED as to interrogatory no. 28.  A verified answer, without objection, shall be provided by September 1, 2017.


The information sought in the other interrogatories implicates the privacy interests of nonparties.  Thus, there is a qualified protection of the requested information from discovery.  Disclosure may be compelled if the Court finds the interests of justice in obtaining the information outweigh the interests sought to be protected.  Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of relevance.  The Court has carefully considered the balance between the right of privacy against the need for discovery.  Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35.  (Defendant is incorrect that a compelling need must be shown here.  See Id. at 34; Williams v. Superior Court, 2017 Cal. Lexis 5124, pgs. 21-22, and fn. 8 (July 13, 2017, S227228).)  The Court finds the information sought is directly relevant to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.  Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1427-1428.  All of the information is within the knowledge of Defendant and the nonparties.  Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge of the information sought.  Plaintiff cannot even notice a deposition of nonparties to attempt to obtain the information as she lacks names and addresses.   Contact information is not particularly sensitive (Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 372.), and the interrogatories call for sensitive information only for those who were discharged for cause or medical reasons.


What is missing here is notice to those whose privacy interests that are affected by this motion, and providing them an opportunity to be heard.  Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658.  Plaintiff does not have the name and address information to provide such notice; Defendant does.  Defendant is ordered to provide notice to all whose information is sought by the interrogatories.  The notice shall be a letter that states (1) the full name of the case, Court, department, and case number; (2) the verbatim text of the interrogatories, including any definitions that apply to that person; (3) the continued hearing date of September 29, 2017 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 23; (4) the right of the person to appear in person at the hearing to voice opposition to the disclosure; (5) the right to file written opposition with the court by September 18, 2017, (6) the right to seek the advice of an attorney, and (7) that the Court intends, if it ultimately decides to order disclosure of their private information, to issue a protective order that the information will be used only in this lawsuit, and otherwise be held confidential by the parties, their attorneys, any witnesses, and Court employees.  There shall be a version for those three persons affected by interrogatories 4, 5 and 8, and a separate version for those persons affected by the remaining interrogatories. 

Counsel for the moving party is ordered to prepare a draft of the letters, and supply them electronically to Defendant’s counsel by August 21, 2017.  If the content is not acceptable to Defendant, then counsel are ordered to meet and confer no later than August 24, 2017.  Counsel for Defendant shall mail the finalized letters to all affected parties by August 30, 2017. 

Counsel are ordered to meet and confer regarding the language for a protective order, and jointly report on those efforts by filing the proposed protective order and any items in dispute, no less than five (5) days before the continued hearing.

The motion of Plaintiff Alma Garcia to compel further responses to special interrogatories 4, 5, 8, 29, and 31 is therefore CONTINUED to September 29, 2017 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 23, as is the request for monetary sanctions.


9000275 – SB HOLDINGS TURLOCK VS. BCI ENTERPRISES – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Appointing Neutral Arbitrator – GRANTED. The Court appoints Eileen Diepenbrock of Sacramento as arbitrator. The arbitration shall be conducted in Stanislaus County.



The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Department 24:



***There are no tentative rulings for 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:



***There are no tentative rulings for Department 19***