January 27, 2026

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

CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion Deeming Responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded by Plaintiff to Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company be Deemed Admitted and Request for $622.50 in Monetary Sanctions (Code of Civil Procedure 2033.010 & 2033.280) - GRANTED and unopposed; sanctions in the amount of $800 are awarded jointly and severally against Defendant and defense counsel, payable within 20 days; b)Plaintiff's Motion Deeming Responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded by Plaintiff to Defendant Enrique Aguilar be Deemed Admitted and Request for $1890 in Monetary Sanctions (Code of Civil Procedure 2033.010 & 2033.280) - GRANTED and unopposed; sanctions in the amount of $400 are awarded jointly and severally against Defendant and defense counsel, payable within 20 days.

a-b) Each motion appears meritorious on its face. Sanctions were reduced due to the lack of opposition and in consideration of the simple nature of the motions.

CV-25-005765 - GEREN, PEGGY vs TARGET CORPORATION - Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial - MOOT, as the Court has granted the continuance by stipulation.

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

CV-20-001252 - ZAGARIS, KAY vs GROESBECK, BERNARD W - a) Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant's Jeffery Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - CONTINUED to February 10, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b)Plaintiff's and Cross-Defendant's Jeffrey Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen’s Motion to Compel Verifications to Responses to Request for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Kay Zagaris - GRANTED, and unopposed; c)Plaintiff's and Cross-Defendant's Jeffrey Paul Jensen, Robert Scott Oman Jensen, and Cross-Defendant Laurie Jensen’s Motion to Compel Verifications to Responses to Request for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions to Neal Groesbeck - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

This matter was continued from January 21, 2026, for further review and consideration. On January 20, 2026, and then in what appears to be a duplicate filing on January 21, 2026, Cross-Complainants filed a surreply, arguing for the first time that the statute of limitations argument was waived because it was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer. That argument should have been raised in opposition to the motion, not in a surreply.

Nonetheless, as the Court is inclined to fully hear the motion on the merits, the Court will give Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants an opportunity to respond to the surreply. Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to February 10, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for a response to the surreply to be filed. Response to be filed and served no later than February 3, 2026.

b) and c) Responses to Requests for Admissions

The unopposed motions to compel verified responses to the Requests for Admissions propounded on Kay Zagaris and Neal Groesbeck are GRANTED.

Under the Civil Discovery Act, responses to Requests for Admission must be verified. An unverified response is treated as no response at all and is not in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210–2033.240; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) Because the Responding Parties have not provided verified responses, an order compelling verified, code‑compliant responses is appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

Sanctions are also warranted. When a party fails to serve timely, verified responses to Requests for Admission, the court is required to impose monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) No substantial justification has been shown, and no circumstances appear that would render sanctions unjust.

Moving Parties have asked for various figures in relation to these motions. As replies were filed but unnecessary (since there were no oppositions to the motions), the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $790 for each motion, as set forth in the declarations filed in support of the moving papers.

Accordingly, Kay Zagaris and Neal Groesbeck shall serve verified, code‑compliant responses to the Requests for Admissions within 10 days of service of this order.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $790 against Kay Zagaris and $790 against Neal Groesbeck are awarded, payable to Berliner Cohen, LLP.

Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions as authorized by the Civil Discovery Act, including an order deeming the matters admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

Moving Parties to submit proposed orders within five court days that reflect this ruling.

PR-25-001008 - IN THE MATTER OF THE TRAMMELL 1998 TRUST DATED JUNE 11, 1998, AS AMENDED-THE SURVIVORS TRUST -Respondent’s Demurrer to Petition - CONTINUED to February 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to February 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-24-000648 - AGUIRRE, FERNANDO vs BONANDER AUTO TRUCK & TRAILER INC - Plaintiff’s Motion for Statutory Attorney’s Fees and Costs - GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $27,836.08.

The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. ( Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5 ^th 462.)

Attorney’s Fees

Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, as well as the Court’s experience in a civil law assignment and familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed by counsel herein were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  ( Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) With regard to claimed paralegal time, however, the Court finds that 3.0 hours of time billed by Mr. Berkowitz between May 2024 and September 2025 reflect purely clerical tasks, primarily involving scheduling and calendar matters, that are subject to deduction herein. Therefore, the Court approves a fee award based on the total amount of hours claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel herein, less $885.00 attributable to non-compensable clerical tasks.

Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community.  ( Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the  community where the action is pending. ( Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.)  The Court itself has substantial experience in a civil law assignment reviewing and determining numerous attorney fee motions with similarly situated and qualified counsel.   ( Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49 [the "experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court”].)  As a result, the Court finds that the requested rates are not reflective of the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County and should be reduced.

Therefore, Mr. Mobasseri and Mr. Cooper’s hourly rates herein are approved in the reduced amount of $500.  Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Stone’s hourly rates are approved in the reduced amount of $200.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the moving papers and supporting declaration of Robert Mobasseri. The scope of expenses recoverable under Civ. Code § 1794(d) is broader than that set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, and the Court finds that the expenses set forth in the motion were reasonably incurred in the prosecution of the instant litigation.

S ummary of Award –

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
Mobasseri	7.5	500	3,750.00
Coooper	33.7	500	16,850
Berkowitz	7	200	1,400.00
Stone	23	200	4,600.00
		Total Fees	26,600.00
		Costs	1,236.08
		AWARD	$27,836.08

CV-25-003490 - KEITH, KRISTIE ANN vs ALDEN PETERSON & SONS INC - a) Defendant State of California Department of Transportation’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint - CONTINUED, at the request of the opposing party, to February 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b)Defendant State of California Department of Transportation’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint - CONTINUED, at the request of the opposing party, to February 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) The hearings are continued, as above, based on Plaintiff’s inadvertent failure to timely serve the opposition papers on defense counsel. The opposition shall be served immediately, and Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 5 court days before the continued hearings.

CV-25-009934 - OMARI, SHAH vs SINGH, SARJIT - Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to February 18, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

It appears that the matter is not yet at issue with regard to Defendant Azevedo, as she was served with this action and the instant application only 12 court days before the hearing and has not yet submitted an appearance in the case. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above,  to allow for concurrent adjudication of the requested attachment orders against both affected defendants.

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

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 24***

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***