June 23, 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.

June 22, 2018

 

 

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

 

 

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 21***

 

 

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:

 

 

2025974 – HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. TRUHETT, DOMINIC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Roxanne Reddick’s Further Responses to Written Discovery and for Sanctions – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to July 20, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has not demonstrated sufficient efforts to meet and confer with regard to all of the issues raised in the instant motion before filing the same.  Moreover, it appears that additional documents were produced by Defendant after the instant motion was filed.  Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that, with additional time and effort, the disputed issues may be resolved by mutual 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 explain the parties’ further efforts to meet and confer in good faith.  If necessary, Plaintiff shall also provide an amended Separate Statement of Disputed Discovery identifying only those responses remaining in dispute.

 

 

2008745 – BUCK, DENNIS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY – a) Defendant’s Motion to Strike/Tax Memorandum of Costs b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses –

 

Based upon the Court’s review of the parties’ Joint Status Statement and the agreement between the parties reflected therein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are awarded a total amount of $135,500.00 for their attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in connection with this matter.  Such award shall be paid by Defendant within 45 days of the hearing of this matter. 

 

The Court further orders that the hearing date on the Court’s Motion to Dismiss is continued, on the Court’s own motion, to August 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

 

 

9000724 – KANGAS, SIERRA VS. WIS INTERNATIONAL LTD – Defendant’s Special Demurrer to Abate and/or Request to Stay Plaintiff’s Complaint – SUSTAINED. 

 

The Court finds that the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies because the instant action involves the same parties and subject matter as the earlier-filed action of Arispe v. Washington Inventory Service dba WIS International, Case No. RIC 1801185,pending in Riverside County Superior Court.  As such, the Court in the earlier-filed action has the power to bring before it all necessary parties, to litigate all issues, and to grant all relief to which any parties might be entitled.  (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 786-788.)  Therefore, an interlocutory judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant WIS International herein to the effect that no trial of other issues shall be had until final determination of Case No. RIC 1801185. (Code Civ. Proc. §597.)

 

 

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

 

 

2024253 – DAVIS, TODD VS. KUHN, KIMBERLY DAWN – a)  Defendant Kimberly Dawn Kuhn’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, b) Defendant John Ramos’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint -

 

a) Defendant Kimberly Dawn Kuhn’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint: Defendant Kuhn’s general demurrers to the First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief, the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Oral Contract, and the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract are SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Therefore, the Court is sustaining Defendant Kuhn’s Demurrers No. 1, 2, and 4.  Defendant’s other demurrers are therefore MOOT.  Plaintiff has been granted several opportunities to state a cause of action against Defendant Kuhn under any theory and has failed to do so.  The facts here are not in dispute – and of course the Court assumes them to be true.  But they simply do not “add up” to the causes of action Plaintiff alleges.  Nor does the Court believe there are any additional factual allegations which Plaintiff has proposed to add to his complaint which would result in a different conclusion.

 

b) Defendant John Ramos’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint:  Initially, the Court notes that Defendant Ramos’ demurrers misidentify the numbers of the causes of action to which he demurs – for instance, the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract is misidentified as the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract, etc.  However, Plaintiff did not object to this error, and each demurrer correctly identifies the cause of action by name.  Therefore, the Court was able to review the demurrers without issue.

Defendant Ramos’ general demurrers to the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract, the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation are SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Therefore, the Court is sustaining Defendant Ramos’ Demurrers number 1, 3 and 5.  Defendant’s other demurrers are therefore MOOT.  Plaintiff has been granted several opportunities to state a cause of action against Defendant Ramos under any theory and has failed to do so.  The facts here are not in dispute – and of course the Court assumes them to be true.  But they simply do not “add up” to the causes of action Plaintiff alleges.  Nor does the Court believe there are any additional factual allegations which Plaintiff has proposed to add to his complaint which would result in a different conclusion.

 

 

2026701 – IDS PROPERTY CASUAL INS CO VS. GOVEA, GABRIELLE – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default – DROPPED at the request of the moving party.

 

 

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***