January 23, 2026

The following is a tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

***There are no tentative rulings for Department 21***

The following is a tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-19-004796 – INDERJIT S TOOR CONSTRUCTION INC vs BROWN, TINA – Defendant's Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment – DENIED.

Procedurally, the motion is defective. Although the moving papers were timely served, they were filed only 12 court days before the hearing date instead of 16 court days as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b).

Substantively, the motion also fails. An amended proof of service of the summons was filed in the case on September 2, 2020, indicating that the summons and complaint were served via substitute service at 310 Bella Flora Lane, Patterson, California, on September 2, 2019. A declaration of diligence showing three prior attempts at service at the same address is attached to the proof. Although Defendant contends that she did not live at that address and Plaintiff knew this, the address where she was served (which is the same address where the work was performed) is the only address showing for Defendant in the agreement and other papers that were signed at the time the contract was executed. Furthermore, Defendant fails to provide any concrete proof—such as a copy of a driver’s license or utility bill—from the period in question corroborating her assertion that her physical residence is and was in Stockton.

Moreover, there was an Abstract of Judgment recorded on the Bella Flora property on September 25, 2020. (See Barringer Decl., Exh. C.) And Plaintiff’s counsel states that he received telephone calls from lenders between 2020 and 2024 regarding refinancing of the property. (See id ., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel also attaches a letter dated July 9, 2025, sent to a lender in response to a payoff demand. (See id ., Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that this was in response to an inquiry that he had received at least a week earlier, i.e., more than six months before this motion was filed. (See id., ¶ 7.)

In view of the above, it appears that Defendant had at least constructive notice of the lawsuit and the judgment as far back as 2020, and it is more likely than not that she had actual notice before 2025. She admittedly had actual notice by June 2025.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to vacate the default and default judgment is DENIED.

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

CV-24-008809 – TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC – a) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. b)Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. c)Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED. d)Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED.

Preliminarily, the Court questions whether sufficient meet and confer discussions were conducted in good faith prior to the filing of the instant motions.  However, the Court recognizes that the parties appear to disagree in multiple significant respects, not merely as to the sufficiency of the subject responses but also on other substantial issues, including but not limited to the necessity of conducting discovery in phases based on the defense’s arguments that certain foundational issues should be determined prior to the initiation of discovery on the class claims.

Therefore, the Court is inclined to consider the appointment of a discovery referee at this juncture, considering the complex and time-consuming nature of the disputes herein, as well as the substantial likelihood of future discovery disputes between the parties as the case progresses toward trial. Counsel shall appear at the time of the hearing to discuss this issue.

CV-25-005384 – BOWERS, LATONA R vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION –Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant, Prestige Default Services – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to DENY the motion on the grounds that Defendant has raised significant questions regarding the validity of service, and the proof of service does not demonstrate proper service on the entity’s designated agent, as the purported “substitute service” was not made on the person “apparently in charge” at the subject location. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 416.10, 415.20(a); see, e.g. Chinese Theater, LLC v. Starline Tours USA, Inc. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5 ^th 1048.)

Moreover, the instant motion seeks a default judgment on the First Amended Complaint, which has been superseded by Plaintiff’s submission of the Second Amended Complaint on 1-7-26. (See, e.g., Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507.)

CV-24-005828 – LAGO FLOORING INC vs MEJIA, WILLIAM – Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication – DENIED, as MOOT, in view of the Notice of Settlement submitted on 1-14-26.

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 is the tentative ruling for a case 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***