Civil Tentative Rulings Announcement
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, you MUST register online to appear telephonically using Vcourt.
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 or ctreport@stanct.org 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
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 21***
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-23-000667 – HILL, WILLIAM vs VIRTUS NUTRITION LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court.
Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with rule 3.769(c) of the California Rules of Court. The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court finds the scheduled set forth in the proposed order acceptable and intends to sign it.
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for September 13, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22 of this Court. Standard rules and statutes for the filing and service of a noticed motion apply to the motion for final approval of the settlement.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:
***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-21-000565 – SOLORIO, OMAR vs A TEICHERT & SON INC – a) Defendant California Material Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; b) Defendant Destination Anywhere, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.
a) Based on the Court’s decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473c (h) to continue the related Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Naryal Trucking, the Court finds that this motion also ought to be continued due to the probable related effect of Plaintiff’s further discovery.
Accordingly, this matter is continued to June 25, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
b) Based on the Court’s decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473c (h) to continue the related Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Naryal Trucking, the Court finds that this motion also ought to be continued due to the probable related effect of Plaintiff’s further discovery.
Accordingly, this matter is continued to June 25, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file a supplementary briefing addressing Defendant’s evidentiary objections herein. Said briefing shall not exceed 10 pages and shall be submitted no later than May 9, 2024.
CV-22-003962 – COX, TRISTIANNA vs US AUTO LEASING INC – Defendant US Auto Leasing Inc’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Under CCP 473(b); Pursuant to Fraud – DENIED, without prejudice.
The Court finds that the declarations supporting Defendant’s motion do not establish any excusable neglect by Defendant or his Counsel that led to Defendant’s default being taken. The Court therefore finds no “ mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect” that would qualify Defendant for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b)).
The Court further finds that Defendant’s application was not timely brought. (Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b)).
Defendant’s application is accordingly denied without prejudice.
CV-23-004769 – MALDONADO, JORGE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 40-45 and 53 – GRANTED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-3, 9, 10, 13-16, 31, 33-111, and 117-123 – GRANTED;
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2017.010 and 2030.300; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).
Regarding Defendant’s claims of attorney client privilege and attorney work product the Court finds that Defendant did not provide sufficient factual information to permit an evaluation of the merits of its claim or a privilege log. Defendant is therefore ordered to produce a privilege log in support of its claims.( Code of Civil Procedure CP § 2030.240;Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116).
Subject to said claims of attorney client privilege, Defendant shall provide further responses to said discovery within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.
b) The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production as said claims largely relate to Plaintiff’s specific vehicle and are relevant to Plaintiff’s civil penalty claims and to Defendant’s affirmative defense of good faith denial of Plaintiff’s request to repurchase his vehicle. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2017.010 and 2031.310; Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101; Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.4th 424, 434).
Regarding Defendant’s claims of attorney client privilege and attorney work product the Court finds that Defendant did not provide sufficient factual information to permit an evaluation of the merits of its claim or a privilege log. Defendant is therefore ordered to produce a privilege log in support of its claims.( Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.240;Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116).
Any trade secret claims must be supported by an affidavit based upon personal knowledge listing the affiant's qualifications to give an opinion concerning the trade secret at issue, identifying, without revealing, the alleged trade secret and articles which disclose the secret, and presenting evidence that the secret qualifies as a trade secret. (Stadish v. Superior Ct., (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1144), applying Section 1061 of the Evid Code).
Subject to said claims of attorney client privilege, Defendant shall provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos 1-3, 9, 10, 13-16, 31,33-111 and 117 – 123 within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.
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 in Department 19***