Motion to Dismiss
(1) and (2) - Interrogatories Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the first set of form and special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant's first set of form interrogatories and first set of special interrogatories, within thirty days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.
(3) Requests for Production Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the first set requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant's first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.
Sanctions Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,000 as to all 3 motions, indicating 4 total hours at a rate of $235 per hour plus a $60 filing fee for each motion. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, as follows: $650 consisting of 2 hours total as to these motions at the rate of $235 per hour plus $180 in filing fees. The Court notes there is no meet and confer requirement and all that is necessary to obtain the relief requested on this motion to compel initial responses is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time. Sanctions are due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Visalia Ceramic Tile, Inc. vs. De Anza Tile Co., Inc. Case No.: VCU327154 Date: June 22, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Motion to Dismiss Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion to dismiss.
Visalia Ceramic Tile, Inc. (VCT) filed a first amended complaint which included an unfair competition cause of action against De Anza Tile Co. Inc. (De Anza), Richard Papapietro, and Jordon Mondragon. Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint. The court sustained De Anza's demurrer to the unfair competition claim with leave to amend and sustained Mondragon's demurrer to the unfair competition claim without leave to amend.
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?”
Mondragon moves to dismiss VCT's first amended complaint against him under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(1). Subdivision (f)(1) of section 581 clearly supports dismissal of the complaint as to Mondragon in the circumstances of this case. Under subdivision (f)(1), "after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend" as to a defendant, "and either party moves for dismissal," "[t]he court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant." Mondragon's motion is, therefore, granted.
VCT argues the motion to dismiss should be denied because it filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint stating a "defamation/slander per se" claim against Mondragon. By way of background, after the aforementioned demurrer rulings, VCT filed a second amended complaint, asserting claims solely against De Anza, Papapietro and 50 "Does," but then, after that, it filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, including a new claim against Mondragon, which motion is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026.
That VCT has moved for leave to amend to assert a new claim against Mondragon, however--irrespective of any policy of liberality in permitting amendments that may apply in the later determination of VCT's motion for leave to amend--is immaterial to the determination of whether it is appropriate now, given the circumstances as they stand today, to dismiss the complaint as to Mondragon. This ruling, of course, is not a predetermination of whether VCT should be granted leave to file a third amended complaint, including a new claim against Mondragon; rather, the court will reach that determination when VCT's motion is properly before the court.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Visalia-County Civic Center Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared June 15, 2026 and June 17, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.
Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR050740 | In the Matter of Flores, Rachel | Confirm Sale Real Property | Appearance Required | Appearance required pursuant to CRC, rule 7.452 | VPR053647 | In the Matter of Maria Mjia | Petition for Small Estate Set-Aside