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@example.com 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.
February 17, 2017
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Department 21:
667209 – MORELLI, ENRICO VS. AMERICAS WHOLESALE LENDER – Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED. Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the foreclosure of the properties in question because the undisputed facts demonstrate they were not the borrower(s) on either loan, nor did they “assume” either loan. Defendants’ moving separate statement of facts and supporting evidence demonstrates that neither Plaintiff ever submitted an effective request to assume either loan. Moreover, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs knew they had not assumed the loans not later than approximately February 2006, when account statements continued to reflect the name of the borrower as “Josephine Pia” or “Estate of Josephine Pia”. See Declaration of Shalini Parker – at Page 5, Paragraph 19 and page 7, Paragraph 33. Plaintiffs’ opposing evidence, in the form of the self-serving Declaration of Enrico Morelli stating that he “took all steps as required by Countrywide to assume the loans or, using the language of the letter from Countrywide, to “transfer title to a family member”” is insufficient to carry the Plaintiffs’ burden in opposition to show the presence of triable disputes of material fact. See e.g. D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21. Even if Plaintiffs produced any evidence tending to prove they actually “took all steps as required” by the February 2005 Countrywide letters, the letter didn’t describe the process for assuming a loan; rather, it described the process for transferring title to a family member of a deceased borrower. Furthermore, Plaintiffs themselves admit in Enrico Morelli’s opposing declaration that Defendants did not change the name of the borrower on account statements issued subsequent to January 2006, when Enrico Morelli claims to have taken “all steps as required” by the February 2005 letters to assume the loans. Standing is a fundamental prerequisite to all of the Plaintiffs’ claims herein. Because the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiffs never assumed the loans in question, they do not have standing to assert any of the claims contained in their Third Amended Complaint and summary judgment is proper.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Timothy W. Salter in Department 22:
***There are no tentative rulings for Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases 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:
2004313 – MORENO, JON VS. TOPIE, ROBERT – Plaintiffs Jon Moreno and Eliane Moreno’s Motion to Enforce Terms of Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed. The motion to enforce the terms of the Court’s November 2, 2016, Judgment is GRANTED. The Court’s Judgment requires Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a key to the gate in order that Plaintiffs may access the easement when necessary to service/maintain the systems thereon. To the extent reasonably possible, and excluding emergent situations, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with the Courtesy of 24 hours’ notice of their need to access the easement, by telephone. A voice-mail message shall suffice as this Courtesy notice. Additionally, Defendants shall immediately remove all items of personal property from the easement area, including those items of personal property depicted in the photographs submitted with the Plaintiffs’ motion. The Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED, as neither the Notice of Motion or the caption included a request for sanctions, and Defendants did not oppose the motion.
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***