April 18, 2025

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-22-006059 – VERA, THOMAS A ENRIQUEZ vs HEATING AND COOLING INC – Compliance Hearing – IN COMPLIANCE; AMENDED ORDER APPROVED.

The Court will sign the order provided.

CV-24-008215 – JAMES, PETERSON INDUSTRIES vs WPD HOMES INC – Defendant WPD Homes INC.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Standing – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court needs to discuss the issues with the parties.

CV-25-000792 – MCCAN, JOEY vs TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Second Amended Summons – DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service demonstrates insufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)  Also, it appears the moving papers were not directed to its clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50(a)), or to opposing counsel.

CV-25-000940 – SILVA, TAMARIA vs COVENENAT LIVING WEST – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable of Covenant Living West and for Production of Documents - WITHDRAWN.

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

CV-22-000102 – LCS CAPITAL LLC vs COSTA, BRIAN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CP  437C – GRANTED, unopposed.

After full consideration of the evidence, and the written submissions by the Plaintiff, and considering the lack of opposition to the instant motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s moving evidence establishes Defendant Brian Costa’s indebtedness to Plaintiff in respect of the loan of $31,000 extended to Defendant by LoanMe Inc., guaranteed by Brian Costa and subsequently sold Plaintiff herein.  Further, that Defendant has defaulted in repayment on said loan to Plaintiff.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has established the absence of a triable issue of material fact regarding Defendant’s said indebtedness to Plaintiff.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in its favor herein.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTSjudgment in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $31,000.00, attorney fees of $6,940.00 and costs of $631.04 with post judgment interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of judgment till paid in full.

CV-23-001912 – ENRIQUEZ, MARTHA vs LUNA, PABLO, JR – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Pablo Luna, JR – MOOT in part, granted in part; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Pablo Luna, JR – MOOT in part, granted in part;

c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Pablo Luna, JR – MOOT in part, granted in part; d) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Mill Street Investments, LLC- DENIED; e ) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Mill Street Investments, LLC- DENIED; f) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Mill Street Investments, LLC- DENIED; g) Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant Pablo Luna's Subpoena for Criminal Records or in the Alternative for a Protective Order to Modify the Subpoena Issued to Stanislaus County; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2,160.00 Against Defendant Pablo Luna, Jr. and His Attorney of Record Attorney Steven Toschi, Esq., & Toschi, Collins & Doyle, APC- GRANTED; h) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Pablo Luna, JR - MOOT, in part, GRANTED, in part; I) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,050.00 Against Defendant Mill Street Investments, LLC - DENIED.

a) MOOT in part, granted in part.

The Court finds that Defendant Pablo Luna failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories served on Defendant on September 27, 2024, and that per Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of Waiver of Objections Defendant is obliged to provide code-compliant objection free responses to said discovery.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b)).Any objections by Defendant to said discovery are accordingly waived.

The Court notes that Defendant has since the last hearing on this motion served responses to said discovery. However, the Court finds this motion was necessary to elicit Defendant’s said responses and that Defendant’s failure to respond to said discovery was without substantial justification. and accordingly finds that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions of $125.00 for attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel within fifteen (15) daysof the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)).

Parties are to resolve any issue with said responses by meeting and conferring in respect thereof with the filing of a Motion to Compel Further Responses, if necessary.

b) MOOT in part, granted in part.

The Court finds that Defendant Pablo Luna failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly propounded Requests for Production served on Defendant on September 27, 2024, and that per Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of Waiver of Objections Defendant is obliged to provide code-compliant objection free responses to said discovery.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2031.300(a) and (b))

Any objections by Defendant to said discovery are accordingly waived. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).

The Court notes that Defendant has since the last hearing on this motion served responses to said discovery. However, the Court finds this motion was necessary to elicit Defendant’s said responses, that Defendant’s failure to respond to said discovery was without substantial justification. and accordingly finds that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions of $125.00 for attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel within fifteen (15) daysof the date of service of this order. (Civ Proc. Code §§2031.300(c), 2023.010 (h); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)). 

Parties are to resolve any issue with said responses by meeting and conferring in respect thereof with the filing of a Motion to Compel Further Responses, if necessary.

c) MOOT in part, granted in part.

The Court finds that Defendant Pablo Luna failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly propounded Form Interrogatories served on Defendant on September 27, 2024, and that per Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of Waiver of Objections Defendant is obliged to provide code-compliant objection free responses to said discovery.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010, 2030.290(b)).

Any objections by Defendant to said discovery are accordingly waived.

The Court notes that Defendant has since the last hearing on this motion served responses to said discovery. However, the Court finds this motion was necessary to elicit Defendant’s said responses and that Defendant’s failure to respond to said discovery was without substantial justification. and accordingly finds that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions of $125.00 for attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel within fifteen (15) daysof the date of service of this order. (Code of Civ. Proc.§§2030.210, 2030.290(c); 2023.030(a); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)).

Parties are to resolve any issue with said responses by meeting and conferring in respect thereof with the filing of a Motion to Compel Further Responses, if necessary

d) DENIED.

The Court finds given the averments by an Associate and Staff from Defendant’s Counsel’s Law Firm that the discovery at issue was not received by Defendant’s Counsel, nor was Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Notice of Waiver of Objections, and given Defendant’s subsequent service of code-compliant responses to the discovery at issue, that it would be unjust to hold Defendant bound by said Notice of Waiver of Objections. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290)

The Court further finds, in view of the foregoing, that Defendant’s conduct in “ failing” to respond to said discovery was with substantial justification. (Civ. Proc. Code § § 2023.010 and 2023.030)

Accordingly,  Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.  The parties shall address any further issues with the present discovery by meeting and conferring and by filing a motion to compel further responses to said discovery , if necessary.

e) DENIED.

The Court finds given the averments by an Associate and Staff from Defendant’s Counsel’s Law Firm that the discovery at issue was not received by Defendant’s Counsel, nor was Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Notice of Waiver of Objections, and given Defendant’s subsequent service of code-compliant responses to the discovery at issue, that it would be unjust to hold Defendant bound by said Notice of Waiver of Objections. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.300)

The Court further finds, in view of the foregoing, that Defendant’s conduct in “ failing” to respond to said discovery was with substantial justification. (Civ. Proc. Code § § 2023.010 and 2023.030) 

Accordingly,  Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.  The parties shall address any further issues with the present discovery by meeting and conferring and by filing a motion to compel further responses to said discovery , if necessary.

f) DENIED.

The Court finds given the averments by an Associate and Staff from Defendant’s Counsel’s Law Firm that the discovery at issue was not received by Defendant’s Counsel, nor was Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Notice of Waiver of Objections, and given Defendant’s subsequent service of code-compliant responses to the discovery at issue, that it would be unjust to hold Defendant bound by said Notice of Waiver of Objections. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290)

The Court further finds, in view of the foregoing, that Defendant’s conduct in “ failing” to respond to said discovery was with substantial justification. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030)

Accordingly,  Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.  The parties shall address any further issues with the present discovery by meeting and conferring and by filing a motion to compel further responses to said discovery , if necessary.  

g) GRANTED.

The Court finds that the subpoena request as presently framed is overbroad as to time and scope and impermissibly intrudes on Plaintiff’s right to privacy. ( California Constitution Art. 1, § 1)

The Court also finds that Defendant has not discharged its burden of demonstrating that the records sought are “relevant to the subject matter” of the action, and either themselves  admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010; Central Valley Ch. 7th Step Foundation, Inc. v. Younger , (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 145).

A balancing of Plaintiffs’ privacy interests in their criminal and arrest records, against any need by Defendant for said information weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. ( Hill v. Natl’l Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1).

Therefore, Deposition Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Criminal Records from Defendant Pablo Luna, is hereby quashed. (Code Civ. Proc. section 1987.1 (a), Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Assn ., (2007).  151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 583).

Plaintiff is awarded $810 as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring this motion. Said costs shall be payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel, within fourteen (14) daysof the date of this order.( Code of Civil Proc. §1987.2)

h) MOOT, in part, GRANTED, in part.

The Court finds that Defendant Pablo Luna failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Request to Deem Admissions Admitted propounded on September 27, 2024, and that per Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of Waiver of Objections Defendant is obliged to provide code-compliant objection free responses to said discovery.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010 and 2033.280 (a)).

Accordingly, any objection to said Requests for Admissions , including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product are hereby waived and the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in said Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 (a)).

The Court notes that Defendant has since the last hearing on this motion served responses to said discovery. However, the Court finds this motion was necessary to elicit Defendant’s said responses,  that said failure to respond is without substantial justification and accordingly finds that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions of $125.00 for attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion. Said sanctions are payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel within fifteen (15) daysof the date of service of this order.  (Civ Proc. Code §§2031.300(c), 2023.010 (h); 2023.030(a); 2033.280 (c); CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1348 (a)). 

Parties are to resolve any issue with said responses by meeting and conferring in respect thereof with the filing of a Motion to Compel Further Responses, if necessary.

i) DENIED.

The Court finds given the averments by an Associate and Staff from Defendant’s Counsel’s Law Firm that the discovery at issue was not received by Defendant’s Counsel, nor was Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Notice of Waiver of Objections, and given Defendant’s subsequent service of code-compliant responses to the discovery at issue, that it would be unjust to hold Defendant bound by said Notice of Waiver of Objections. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280)

The Court further finds, in view of the foregoing, that Defendant’s conduct in “ failing” to respond to said discovery was with substantial justification. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030) 

Accordingly,  Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.  The parties shall address any further issues with the present discovery by meeting and conferring and by filing a motion to compel further responses to said discovery , if necessary.

The following are the tentative ruling 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***