Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
in California that if a person is permitted by statute to appear and take part in an administrative hearing, he is sufficiently beneficially interested to seek a writ of mandate to review the administrative decision or disposition." (Memorial Hosp. of So. Cal. v. State Health Planning Council (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 167, 178.)
Ultimately, whether Petitioner McDonald has standing to bring the petition depends on whether Petitioner McDonald can establish the requisite beneficial interest and/or that she was a party to the administrative hearing. Here, Petitioner McDonald participated in the administrative proceeding. Petitioner McDonald is identified as the "Appellant" in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Administrative Appeal Hearing Transcript. (E.g., AR3-7; AR2-10) And City allowed Petitioner McDonald to appear at the hearing, City allowed Petitioner McDonald to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and then City issued a final decision on the merits based on the evidence Petitioner McDonald presented at the hearing. The parties should be prepared to address this issue at the hearing and the Court may request further briefing.
Finally, City argues that Petitioner McDonald is not a licensed attorney and thus, cannot represent Modesto Smoke Shop. Because Ms. McDonald does not indicate that she is a California-licensed attorney, she cannot represent the smoke shop. "'A corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney." [Citations.]" (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729.) The Court once again encourages Modesto Smoke Shop to promptly seek legal advice from a California-licensed attorney regarding this matter.
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CV-23-002816 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs VIVEROS, ROBERT, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed. Based on the moving papers, the declaration of counsel and attached evidence, and the Court's order deeming matters admitted on 12-18-25, as well as the lack of opposition hereto, the Court finds that the Petitioner, as the moving party, has demonstrated fulfillment of the statutory requirements for forfeiture of the subject funds and is entitled to judgment herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(1); Health & Saf. Code Sec.Sec. 11470(f), 11488.4, and 11488.5, et seq.) The subject funds shall be distributed pursuant to Health & Saf. Code Sec. 11489.
CV-24-005251 - AVILES, JOSUE vs SMOLINSKIY, YURIY - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admissions as Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Yuriy Smolinskiy in the Amount of $500 - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.).
The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.280(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 are awarded against Defendant Yuriy Smolinskiy, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
CV-24-008809 - TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage LLC and for Monetary Sanction - HEARING REQUIRED.
b) Plaintiff's Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production from Rocket Mortgage LLC and for Monetary Sanction - HEARING REQUIRED.
c) Plaintiff's Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Special Interrogatories from Clearcapital.com Inc. and For Monetary Sanction - HEARING REQUIRED.
d) Plaintiff's Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production from Clearcapital.com Inc. and for Monetary Sanction - HEARING REQUIRED.
e) Defendant Clear Capital's Motion to Phase Discovery to Address Plaintiff's