Defendant's FCA US LLC and Razzari Chrysler Dodge Jeep Rams' Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 25, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Defendant's Motion Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Requests for Admissions, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED.
a-d) The Court has questions about the timeliness of the instant motions, which may adversely impact the Court's jurisdiction to hear them. Proof of service indicates Plaintiff's verified responses to each of the discovery requests were electronically served on 1-26-26, yet notice of the instant motions was not provided until 4-22-26, which exceeds the 45-day deadline provided in Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c). The Court finds no indication in the evidence that the parties agreed to extend the subject deadline and does not believe a stay was in effect.
Even if served on February 27, 2026 as alleged by Defendant, the 45 days would have run. On March 17, 2026, the Court explicitly stated the due date for the motion to compel was April 15, 2026. Discussions between the parties do not appear to have extended this date but I may be mistaken or be unaware of other facts. If I were to reach the merits, I note that Plaintiff has expressly placed his mental health conditions at issue.
CV-26-005622 - IN THE MATTER OF VILLAVICENCIO, ELI M - Petitioner's Petition for Order Authorizing Transfer of Minor's Interest in Real Property - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has questions as to whether Probate Court has jurisdiction under Probate Code section 851. Further, the minor likely is required to have counsel.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-19-001959 - DAMPIER, WILLIE LEE, Sr vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED.
On May 12, 2026, the Settlement Administrator submitted a supplemental declaration stating that there were 465 uncashed checks totaling $41,967.87 that remained uncashed after the deadline. The uncashed check funds in the amount of $41,967.87 were sent to the State Controller's Office - Unclaimed Property Fund in the names of the respective class members on March 23, 2026. On May 21, 2026, the Court signed the Amended Order and Judgment. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 384.5, the court directs the clerk to transmit a copy of the amended judgment along with the original judgment to the Judicial Council for completion of the report required by Section 68520 of the Government Code. As it appears that all payment obligations regarding the settlement agreement have now been fulfilled, the compliance hearing is DROPPED.
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-26-003505 - TOVAR, MARK A vs FCA US LLC - Defendant's FCA US LLC and Razzari Chrysler Dodge Jeep Rams' Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On May 27, 2026, Defendants submitted a motion to compel deposition of plaintiff. The motion is unopposed. The deposition of Plaintiff in this lemon law case was first noticed for January 5, 2026. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel were not available and asked to reschedule. Despite numerous follow-ups from Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to provide a date certain for the deposition. Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition via Zoom. Defendants propose providing to Plaintiff two dates and times within 15 days of the notice of the order on the instant motion, from which Plaintiff will choose one.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendants submitted in connection with the instant motion.
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; d) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.
a) Requests for Production The Court notes that the separate statement for this motion was not fully compliant with rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court because it grouped the requests for production and did not quote the requests and the responses verbatim. Nonetheless, to the extent that the tardy responses contained objections or were otherwise not fully code-compliant, the motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
b) Form Interrogatories Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
c) Special Interrogatories Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
d) Requests for Admissions Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. With regard to the requests numbered above 35, although the number of requests exceeds the statutory limit and there was apparently no declaration of necessity, any objection to the excessive number of requests and the lack of a declaration was waived due to the fact that responses were not timely served. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030(b).) Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-010698 - SANTIBANEZ, RAYMOND vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Defendant State of California Department of Transportation's Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted and Requests for Mandatory