August 1, 2025

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

CV- 22-000032 - HODGSON, KETRIN vs MOHAMAD, ABDO - Defendants/Cross-Complainants Abdo Mohamad and Amria Alsumairi’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication - CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to August 7, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21.

The Court apologizes for the delay.

CV-25-001203 - OLIVARES, MARIA ROSARIO HERNANDEZ DE vs COVENANT LIVING WEST – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is likely to ask a few very general questions.

If granted, the effective date of the order shall be delayed until counsel submits proof of service of the signed order on the client. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)

CV-25-003378 - OLIVARES, BLANDINA vs COVENANT LIVING WEST - a) Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate - GRANTED; b) Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint - OVERRULED.

The Court first addresses the multiple procedural issues with Defendant’s filings. First, the motion to consolidate was not filed or noticed in the other case. Second, these motions were filed together, which is improper. Third, the “Notice of Demurrer,” includes the Demurrer itself.

The Court chooses not to find that forfeiture of the issues has occurred, but the failure of Defendant to separate even the responses in the reply is a continuing violation of the Rules of Court. This information is intended to be educational.

Addressing the demurrer first: The enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act are not available to heirs. ( Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4 ^th 1256.) But that does not resolve the issue.

Defendant’s contention that this is necessarily professional negligence rather than custodial care and thus triggers the one-year statute of limitations under Code Civ. Proc. section 340.5 appears unsound given the pleadings of caretaking violations. As Plaintiff notes accurately, the evidence may or may not support Plaintiff’s claims, but Plaintiff’s claims appear to be sufficient to meet the standards.

The wrongful conduct requirement of a wrongful death claim has been sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff outlines these allegations both in the Complaint and the opposition. While the specific dates are often omitted, there appears to be sufficient precision in the allegations to survive demurrer.

The Motion to Consolidate is for two cases in which the factual bases are extremely closely aligned, and the legal bases are closely aligned. The decedent’s care and cause of death are key issues in each case. The Court is uncertain as to whether it would be an abuse of discretion to deny the motion, but the duplication of effort on each case appears to be inefficient for the parties and the Court. Any differences in the standard of proof can be explained to the finder of fact.

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

CV- 23-004628 - COUGHLIN, SAMANTHA vs FRESHPOINT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INC - Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - CONTINUED to September 3, 2025 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The Court is hesitant to approve this motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement mainly because it questions whether a class of five can satisfy the numerosity factor required for a class action case, even if the class is being certified for settlement purposes only, and even if the Defendant has affirmatively stated that it does not oppose the motion.

California law does not set a fixed number for the numerosity requirement. “There is no set number required to maintain a class action, and the statutory test is whether a class is so numerous that ‘it is impracticable to bring them all before the court....’ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 382.)” ( Hendershot v. Ready to Roll Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1223 [holding that a trial court’s bare conclusion that a class of nine was insufficiently numerous without further discussion was incomplete].) With that noted, the supporting memorandum fails to explain why individual joinder in this particular case is impracticable. The memorandum merely asserts, “The settlement class consists of approximately 5 Class Members. Thus, the requirement of numerosity is met because joinder of 5 individual plaintiffs into a single case is otherwise impracticable in light of the circumstances of this case.” (Mem., at p. 18.) However, it is not self-evident to the Court why joining five individuals in this particular case would not be practicable. The Court further notes that it was unable to find on its own any case addressing a class action settlement for a proposed class of this size.

The Court’s hesitation is compounded by the fact that Defendant is buying a broad release on behalf of not only itself but also “each of its affiliates/parents (including Sysco Corporation) , predecessors, successors, and all of their past and present directors, officers, shareholders, members, managers, joint employers, co-employers, integrated enterprises, representatives, employees, insurers, and agents” (Naessig Decl., Exh. 1 § 1.42) as to these five proposed class members.

Consequently, this matter is CONTINUED to September 3, 2025 at 8:30 am in Department 22 for a supplemental brief (and declaration, if necessary) further explaining why the joinder of the individuals under the circumstances of this particular case is impracticable. The supplemental papers are to be filed and served at least 16 court days (plus appropriate time added for method of service) before the continued hearing date.

CV-24-003049 – WESTERN HILLS WATER DISTRICT vs WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses from Douglas Kearney to Form Interrogatories Set No. Two; Request for Attorneys' Fees - STAYED pending appeal; b)Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Guillermo Marrero to Form Interrogatories Set No. 2; Request for Attorneys' Fees - STAYED pending appeal; c)Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses from Carmen Kearney to Form Interrogatories Set No. 2; Request for Attorneys' Fees - STAYED pending appeal.

a-c) These motions are STAYED pending the remittitur for appellate Case No. F089938. 

CV-24-009782 – SAMPAG, JEANNELYN R vs IMPORT DEALER SERVICES INC – a)Defendants Import Dealer Services Inc. and Travis Anthony Wilson's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag's Responses to Form Interrogatories - General, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification; b)Defendants Import Dealer Services Inc. and Travis Anthony Wilson's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification; c)Defendants Import Dealer Services Inc. and Travis Anthony Wilson's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One – GRANTED with modification; d)Defendants Import Dealer Services Inc. and Travis Anthony Wilson's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, to Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag Admitted, or Alternatively, Compel Plaintiff to Serve Verified Responses Without Objections; and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED with modification.

a) Form Interrogatories

The motion is GRANTED with modification. After the filing of this motion, the Plaintiff served responses (and shortly thereafter, revised responses), but some of the responses are incomplete. (See Reply re Interrogatories at pp. 3-4 [describing shortcomings in form interrogatory responses].) The Court thus orders Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objection, within 14 days from the date of the signed order being served on her.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c), the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Although Plaintiff argues that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff did not proactively seek an extension on the time for serving responses and then did not meet a later deadline set by Defendants. Responses were not served until after this motion was filed. It is clear that Plaintiff is not staying in steady communication with her attorney, and indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed a motion seeking to be relieved due to the communication difficulties.

Defendants have asked for sanctions in the amount of “at least $1,310.00” against Plaintiff and/or her counsel, which comprises 3 attorney hours at $250 per hour to draft the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the reply and attending the hearing on this matter, plus a $60 filing fee. The Court doubts that a hearing will be requested regarding this matter and therefore grants sanctions in the amount of $560 (four attorney hours at $250 per hour divided in two, as only one set of motion papers was filed for the form and special interrogatories, plus a $60 filing fee, as the form and special interrogatories were separately calendared) against Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag, payable to Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Should Plaintiff request a hearing, the Court will revisit the sanctions amount.

Defendants are directed to provide a new proposed order within 10 court days that reflects this ruling.

b) Special Interrogatories

The motion is GRANTED with modification. After the filing of this motion, the Plaintiff served responses (and shortly thereafter, revised responses), but some of the responses include objections, and some are incomplete. (See Reply re Interrogatories at pp. 3-5 [describing shortcomings in special interrogatory responses].) The Court thus orders Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objection, within 14 days from the date of the signed order being served on her.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c), the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Although Plaintiff argues that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff did not proactively seek an extension on the time for serving responses and then did not meet a later deadline set by Defendants. Responses were not served until after this motion was filed. It is clear that Plaintiff is not staying in steady communication with her attorney, and indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed a motion seeking to be relieved due to the communication difficulties.

Defendants have asked for sanctions in the amount of “at least $1,310.00” against Plaintiff and/or her counsel, which comprises 3 attorney hours at $250 per hour to draft the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the reply and attending the hearing on this matter, plus a $60 filing fee. The Court doubts that a hearing will be requested regarding this matter and therefore grants sanctions in the amount of $560 (four attorney hours at $250 per hour divided in two, as only one set of motion papers was filed for the form and special interrogatories, plus a $60 filing fee, as the form and special interrogatories were separately calendared) against Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag, payable to Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Should Plaintiff request a hearing, the Court will revisit the sanctions amount.

Defendants are directed to provide a new proposed order within 10 court days that reflects this ruling.

c) Requests for Production

The motion is GRANTED with modification. After the filing of this motion, the Plaintiff served responses (and shortly thereafter, revised responses), but some of the responses include objections, and some are incomplete. (See Reply re Requests for Production at pp. 2-3[describing shortcomings in responses].) The Court thus orders Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objection, within 14 days from the date of the signed order being served on her.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(c), the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to requests for production, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Although Plaintiff argues that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff did not proactively seek an extension on the time for serving responses and then did not meet a later deadline set by Defendants. Responses were not served until after this motion was filed. It is clear that Plaintiff is not staying in steady communication with her attorney, and indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed a motion seeking to be relieved due to the communication difficulties.

Defendants have asked for sanctions in the amount of “at least $1,310.00” against Plaintiff and/or her counsel, which comprises 3 attorney hours at $250 per hour to draft the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the reply and attending the hearing on this matter, plus a $60 filing fee. The Court doubts that a hearing will be requested regarding this matter and therefore grants sanctions in the amount of $1,060 (four attorney hours at $250 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee) against Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag, payable to Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Should Plaintiff request a hearing, the Court will revisit the sanctions amount.

Defendants are directed to provide a new proposed order within 10 court days that reflects this ruling.

d) Requests for Admissions

The motion is GRANTED with modification. After the filing of this motion, the Plaintiff served responses (and shortly thereafter, revised responses), but some of the revised responses still contain objections. (See Mistry Reply Decl. re RFAs, Exh. 2 at Response Nos. 14, 18, 24-26.) Because responses were provided before the hearing on this matter, the Court DENIES the request to deem the matters set forth in the requests for admissions admitted. But, having failed to timely respond, objections are deemed waived, and Plaintiff has not moved for relief from the waiver. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).) Consequently, the objections contained in the revised responses are improper, and the Court orders Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objection, within 14 days from the date of the signed order being served on her.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) mandates that the Court impose a monetary sanction “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Defendants have asked for sanctions in the amount of “at least $1,310.00” against Plaintiff and/or her counsel, which comprises 3 attorney hours at $250 per hour to draft the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the reply and attending the hearing on this matter, plus a $60 filing fee. The Court doubts that a hearing will be requested regarding this matter and therefore grants sanctions in the amount of $1,060 (four attorney hours at $250, plus the $60 filing fee) against Plaintiff Jeannelyn R. Sampag, payable to Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Should Plaintiff request a hearing, the Court will revisit the sanctions amount.

Defendants are directed to provide a new proposed order within 10 court days that reflects this ruling

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-22-005500 - GUMBS, KHEA S vs ZUNIGA, BLANCA - a) Defendant Pamela Guerino’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two - CONTINUED, on the court’s own motion, to August 29, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b)Defendant Pamela Guerino’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two - CONTINUED, on the court’s own motion, to August 29, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. 

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the court’s own motion, to August 29, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. 

The Court notes that the moving papers failed to include a separate statement as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354.  Defendant’s late submission of the statement (after the opposition was filed) does not cure this deficiency and deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to respond to the same. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to continue the hearing in order to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file a response to the separate statement. The response shall be submitted no later than August 22, 2025.

The Court further instructs the parties, through their counsel, to continue meet-and-confer efforts in an attempt to resolve the disputed issues before the continued hearing date. Civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith meet-and-confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) The Court believes that the instant motion presents the type of dispute that should be amenable to informal resolution if genuine efforts are expended in good faith. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement describing their efforts in this regard and identifying the issues remaining in dispute, if any, no later than August 22, 2025.

CV-23-000787 - LEE, ESMERALDA vs RIVER OAK PHARMACEUTICAL CARE INC - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED.

Based on the settlement administrator’s declaration submitted on 7-23-25, the Court finds that compliance has been demonstrated, and no hearing is necessary. Class counsel shall submit a form of amended judgment reflecting the total amount of unclaimed settlement funds to be deposited with the State Controller’s office for handling in accordance with its unclaimed property procedures.

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

CV-21-002479 – LEVELIT INSTALLATIONS GROUP INC vs SOLIS, RICHARD – a) Defendant’s Motion of Intention to Move for New Trial – Withdrawn at the request of the moving party; b) Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict – Withdrawn at the request of the moving party.

CV-23-006604 - ENVIROTECH CHEMICAL SERVICES INC vs WINTONIRELAND INSURANCE AGENCY INC - Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Granting the Verified Application of Jennifer Black Strutt to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Envirotech Chemical Services, Inc. - GRANTED.

Good cause existing, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby granted. (Cal. Rules of Court 9.40)

CV-24-002766 - JD2 INCORPORATED vs STORIE AND SEVERSON CONSTRUCTION INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses of Northpoint Development, LLC to Storie and Severson Construction, Inc.'s Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that NorthPoint appears to have served Storie and Severson with an opposition to this motion. However, said opposition was not filed with the Court and is therefore not before the Court.

Gleaning from Storie and Severson’s Reply hereto, the Court is not inclined to find Northpoint’s position meritorious.

However, in the absence of said filed Opposition, the Court continues this matter to August 12, 2025 at 8:30 am in Department 24for NorthPoint to file said Opposition.

Given Northpoint’s apparent claims of failure to meet and confer, the parties are advised to engage in reasonable and good faith meet and confer during said continuance. ( Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040; In re Marriage of Moore , (2024) 102 Cal. App. 5th 1275; Clement v. Alegre ( 2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277).

The parties shall file a Joint Status Statement at least five (5)Court days prior to the next hearing.

CV-24-009989 - OWENS, CHARLES vs SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL INTERNATIONAL LLP - Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court,  the Court finds that the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein. 

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for April 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24to confirm full administration of the settlement.  Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court daysbefore the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.  At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court’s Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).)

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 in Department 19***