August 12, 2020

A A A
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 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 12, 2020

 

 

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before the Honorable Timothy W. Salter sitting on assignment in Department 21:

 

 

9000168 – DAVIS BOAT MANUFACTURING NORDIC INC VS. SMITH, WELDON – Plaintiff’s Motion for Turnover Order in Aid of Execution of Judgment – GRANTED.

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 697.530 does not apply when the lien Plaintiff is seeking to enforce is not a judgment lien, but a security interest and a lien taken at the time of purchase to ensure payment.  The agreement between the parties provided that title in the speedboat and trailer at issue here remained in Plaintiff until the equipment was paid for, and granted a security interest in the equipment to Plaintiff “to secure payment of the purchase price and performance of all obligations under this Agreement.”  The agreement further required Defendant to return the equipment.  Section 697.530 does not apply under these circumstances.

 

Defendant fails to identify the motion as to which it claims this is an untimely motion for reconsideration, and this Court has not been able to identify any such motion in the record.  The Court also rejects Defendant’s argument that enforcement of the judgment is stayed, as Defendant has not filed an appeal bond.  Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 700.090 does not apply because the certificate of ownership for the boat and trailed expired on December 31, 2015.

 

 

CV-18-002949 – WESTBERG, AMINE VS. FCA US LLC – Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) – DENIED.

 

Special Interrogatories 1 through 6 do not seek relevant information, and the answers are not likely to lead to relevant information.  In fact, these interrogatories appear to be aimed solely as a scare tactic regarding the tax consequences to Plaintiff of any award in her favor.  Defendants may ultimately have need of Plaintiff’s social security number in order to fulfill its tax-reporting obligations, but that is dependent upon Plaintiff achieving any recovery in this case.  The information requested in Special Interrogatory No. 1 can be provided should it become necessary at some point in the future.  There is no time at which answers to Special Interrogatories 2 through 6 are necessary to Defendants’ tax-reporting obligations.

 

Special Interrogatory No. 7, the only proper inquiry Defendants made, was answered sufficiently.

 

The Court awards $1,505 in sanctions to Plaintiff from Defendants and their counsel jointly.  This sum represents 4.3 hours of attorney time – one-half of the time requested by Plaintiff’s attorney for the routine briefing here – at $350 per hour – a rate more in line with rates customarily charged in Stanislaus County.

 

 

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

 

 

PR-19-000251 – ESTATE OF DUKE, PAULINE – Christopher W Duke’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production & Inspection of Documents & Request for Monetary Sanctions Originally Filed 06/17/19 – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

 

RFP No. 1 – To the extent David Duke has failed to provide verified responses to this request, he shall provide a verified response.  All other aspects of the motion to compel further responses to this request are DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

RFP No. 2 – To the extent David Duke has failed to provide verified responses to this request, he shall provide a verified response.  All other aspects of the motion to compel further responses to this request are DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

RFP No. 3 – To the extent David Duke has failed to provide verified responses to this request, he shall provide a verified response.  All other aspects of the motion to compel further responses to this request are DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

RFP No. 4 – To the extent David Duke has failed to provide verified responses to this request, he shall provide a verified response.  All other aspects of the motion to compel further responses to this request are DENIED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED, per below.  David Duke failed to produce the trust bank account statements until more than eight (8) months after the motion was filed. 

 

The Court notes that Christopher Duke’s motion to compel further responses only addressed Requests for Production Nos. 1-4.

 

The Court is inclined to grant sanctions in a reduced amount only for work pertaining to Request for Production No. 4 – with regard to the trust bank account records.  Counsel for Christopher Duke shall submit the billing related to this request to counsel for David Duke and the Court no later than August 26, 2020.  Any objection to the billing from David Duke shall be limited to five (5) pages and be served and filed no later than September 4, 2020.  Thereafter, the Court will take the matter of sanctions under submission and render its decision.

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

 

 

2027151 – SHARP, RAVEN VS. NATURAL REMEDIES CONSULTING INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Natural Remedies Consulting, Inc., Richard King and Cheryl King to Respond without Objection to Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories and Judicial Council Form Interrogatories – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to August 26, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

 

The Court notes that the supporting declaration and exhibits referenced in the moving papers are not contained in the Court’s file.  The Court cannot rule on the motion without the benefit of reviewing the supporting evidence.  Therefore, the hearing is continued and Plaintiff is instructed to submit the missing documentation no later than August 19, 2020.

 

 

CV-19-000937 – PORRAS, JERAE VS. CHIPOTLE SERVICES LLC – a) Aggrieved and Injured Party Jose Delgado’s Motion To Vacate the Court’s Order Approving the Paga Settlement and Issuing Judgment Thereon Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663; b) Aggrieved and Injured Party Jose Delgado’s Motion To Vacate the Void Judgment CCP Section 473(d) –

 

a) & b)Both matters are CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to August 28, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The Court requires additional time to review these matters.     

 

 

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***