December 10, 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.

December 11, 2018

 

 

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

 

 

2130109 – BRUHN, NIKKI MARIE VS. BRUHN, JULEE LYNN – Smith & Johnson Law, APC, and Andrew D. Smith’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Nikki Marie Bruhn is GRANTED, and unopposed.  Based upon a review of the moving papers and in the absence of any opposition thereto and good cause shown therein, the motion is granted.  Moving counsel is hereby relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff Nikki Marie Bruhn.  The order relieving will become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the Order on Plaintiff Bruhn.

 

 

CV-18-003841 – IN RE:  LUSTER, L. – Petitioner’s Petition for Approval of Structured Settlement Payment Rights is CONTINUED, at the request of counsel for the moving party, to February 8, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21. 

 

 

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

 

 

2023245 – PASTOR OF ST. STANISLAUS CHURCH VS. T.B. PENICK & SONS, INC. – a) Cross-Defendant D.A. WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The Court finds the settlement between Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant D.A. WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC. was entered in good faith and within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(2) and Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.  Therefore, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §877.6, all existing or future claims by any party, joint tortfeasor, or co-obligor against D.A. WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC. for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity based upon comparative negligence or comparative fault, related to the claims in this lawsuit are forever barred.  

 

b) Cross-Defendant DURAN & VENABLES, INC.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The Court finds the settlement between Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant DURAN & VENABLES, INC. was entered in good faith and within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(2) and Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.  Therefore, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §877.6, all existing or future claims by any party, joint tortfeasor, or co-obligor against DURAN & VENABLES, INC. for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity based upon comparative negligence or comparative fault related to the claims in this lawsuit are forever barred.

 

 

2028818 – RHODES, PATSY VS. SUTTER CENTRAL VALLEY HOSPITALS – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preferential Trial Setting – GRANTED, and HEARING REQUIRED to select trial date.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for preferential trial setting, in light of her advanced age and health concerns. (Code Civ. Proc. §36(a).) Therefore, counsel are directed to appear with their trial calendars and be prepared to select a trial date within 120 days, i.e. by 4-10-19. (Code Civ. Proc. §36(f).)  Appearance by Court Call is acceptable for this purpose.

 

 

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

 

 

2130176 – AVILA, ARMANDO VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC – a) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents; and b) Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order – Both matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 12, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 to be heard with other motions set for that date.

 

 

9000615 – PEREZ, EDWARD VS. FIRST STUDENT, INC. – Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Continued Deposition of Yadira Sandoval and to Instruct the Witness to Answer Questions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to December 14, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 to be heard with the motion set for that date.

 

 

2014674 – ARRINGTON, ANDWELE VS. BOOMERS MODESTO – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Delayed Prosecution – DENIED, without prejudice.

 

Defendant’s proof of service demonstrates that Plaintiff was not provided sufficient notice of the motion, as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1342(a).

 

 

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

 

 

2025461 – N. F. VS. SHUBOV, DMITRY – Defendants’ Demurrers to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint are SUSTAINED, in their entirety, with leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to support any cause of action against these demurring defendants and for uncertainty.  Defendants simply cannot have directly committed any of the acts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and therefore to the extent that the Second Amended Complaint alleges the same, it is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.  Further, Plaintiffs’ conclusory statements regarding Demurring Defendants’ “knowledge” of Defendant Shubov's alleged actions are not only unsupported by any other facts, they are belied by other allegations in the Second Amended Complaint which are repeatedly pled in an "and/or" fashion – suggesting that Defendant Shubov acted completely independently of the Demurring Defendants.  Simply, the Second Amended Complaint does not provide factual support (as opposed to conclusions) sufficient to establish the Demurring Defendants had knowledge of Defendant Shubov’s alleged intentions or that Demurring Defendants’ alleged acts (specifically of reserving hotel rooms for Defendant Shubov) were acts taken to further those intentions.  In opposition, Plaintiffs discuss causes of action which they have not alleged in the Second Amended Complaint – including “negligent hiring and retention” and “aiding and abetting.”  Since it is possible that Plaintiffs may be able to state facts sufficient to support such causes of action, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend one last time.  Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint shall be filed not later than December 24, 2018.

 

 

2020222 – PEREZ, ALEJANDRO VS. ALCAUTERPEREZ, JOSE H. – Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff's commencing an action tolls the statute of limitations on Defendant's causes of action against Plaintiff that relate to the accident upon which the complaint is brought. In effect, Plaintiff's action waives any limitations statute that would prevent Defendant from making a proper defense. See e.g. Trindade v. Sup.Ct. (Jacolick) (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 857, 859-860; see also Luna Records Corp. v. Alvarado (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1028.  While the addition of a third party to Defendant’s cross-complaint may be prohibited by the statute of limitations, that does not prevent Defendant from filing the cross-complaint nor does it prevent said third party from challenging the cross-complaint on that ground.

 

 

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***

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before the Honorable Timothy W. Salter, sitting on assignment as Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus in Department 13:

 

 

2020670 – ATTWAL, SUCHA VS. SANDHU, ZORAWAR – Respondent’s Motion to Modify Restraining Order – HEARING REQUIRED.

 

 

2021189 – BASSI, JULVINDER SINGH VS. SANDHU, ZORAWAR SINGH – Respondent’s Motion to Modify Restraining Order – HEARING REQUIRED.