Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Possession
Additionally, the undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff exited a stall, walked to the sink, turned toward the hand dryer, and struck the stool with her right foot. (UMF No. 5.)
The Court is unconvinced that this layout can be cleanly analogized to sidewalk or other floor defects. These surrounding circumstances--including the configuration of the restroom, the location of the stool relative to the path to the hand dryer, and visibility issues--are relevant to the trivial defect analysis. Given the conflicting analysis regarding the stool's placement and its interaction with the foreseeable route taken by restroom users, the Court declines to find that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.
Open and Obvious
Defendant argues that the condition was open and obvious and therefore negates duty. This appears to be at odds with the assertion that it was trivial. Defendant's evidence includes that the stool was visible and stationary beneath the sink and that Plaintiff did not see it before the incident. (UMF Nos. 3, 5.) The undisputed facts further show that Plaintiff entered the restroom, used a stall, walked to the sink, and then, after turning toward the hand dryer, struck the stool and fell. (UMF No. 5.)
Plaintiff, however, disputes the implications of these facts and presents evidence that the stool was not readily visible from a sink user's perspective and was obscured by the sink structure. (Response to UMF Nos. 6-8; AMF No. 41.) Plaintiff also contends that the restroom layout required patrons to traverse the area where the stool was located in order to access the hand dryer. (AMF No. 44.) Whether the condition was sufficiently obvious, and whether Defendant nonetheless owed a duty to remedy or warn of the condition, depends on disputed factual issues, including visibility and necessity of encountering the condition. Accordingly, triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment on this ground.
CV-25-007268 - CRUZ, VANESSA vs COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA LLC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration - CONTINUED by request of the parties to July 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 of this Court.
CV-26-002498 - TUCCI, KATIE vs GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INC - Defendant's Application of Eric R. Locker to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED, and unopposed. The unopposed application of Attorney Eric R. Locker to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Basic Benefits LLC is GRANTED. The Court finds that the application substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40
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?”
The Court further finds that the procedural requirements of rule 9.40(c), including notice and service on all parties and the State Bar, have been satisfied. Eric R. Locker is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action, subject to compliance with all applicable California laws, rules, and professional responsibilities. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the court file for this application. The moving party is directed to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-012139 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs GONSALVES, JOSEPH A - Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Possession - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court requires clarification as to the lack of proof of service of the First Amended Complaint, Summons and moving papers on Mary Ann Gonsalves and Rosemarie Rocha who have been identified as interest holders in the property in respect of which Plaintiff seeks prejudgment possession. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (b)). The Court also notes the lack of any motion on file to serve All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Described Herein. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (b)).
CV-25-012162 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs AZEVEDO, ISABEL V - Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Possession - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court would like clarification as to the question of service of the Writ of Summons, Complaint and supporting pleadings on "ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN."
CV-26-001855 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT - Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Possession - MOOT. In view of the Stipulation and Order entered into by Plaintiff, Modesto Irrigation District and the Menghetti Trusts, of June 5, 2026, and Defendant California Farmland Trust's Non-Opposition to the Motion for Prejudgment Possession, the motion is accordingly rendered MOOT.
CV-26-003993 - SMITH, IMANI vs AMADOR, VANESSA - Defendant's Demurrer to All Causes of Action in Plaintiffs' Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, and unopposed. As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Defendants' arguments relative to purported service defects are untimely herein, as no motion to quash has been filed and any such defects have now been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 418.10(e)(3).) With regard to Defendants' remaining arguments, the Court sustains the demurrer in its entirety. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 430.10(e).) While the Court will grant leave to amend in this instance despite Plaintiffs' failure to oppose, Plaintiffs are cautioned that it is their burden to demonstrate how additional factual allegations can overcome the demurrer. Therefore, future failures to oppose dispositive motions could result in Plaintiffs losing the right to amend the pleading to attempt to allege additional facts to support the stated causes of action.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-005496 - GODINEZ, JESUS vs PLANASA LLC - Final Fairness Hearing - CONTINUED, at Plaintiff's request. In view of Plaintiff's status report of June 3, 2026, indicating the continued hold on disseminating the Class Notice based on pending supplemental information to be produced by Defendants, this matter is continued to August 21, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions - GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendant's service of a deposition subpoena on PostalAnnex did not provide Plaintiff and his then Counsel Ms. Shiloh notice of said deposition, and also failed to serve P's Counsel as the consumer, with the required (1) notice of the deposition (2) notice of privacy rights and (3) a copy of the deposition subpoena. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2025.240 (a) and (b)). Defendant's said failure amounts to abuse of the discovery process giving the Court discretion to impose discovery sanctions. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2023.010 and 2023.030). Monetary sanctions of $700 are hereby imposed against Defendant and her Counsel jointly for Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion
CV-25-008195 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs GARCIA, MONIQUE S - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under C.C.P 664.6 & Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - GRANTED, unopposed. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the parties of December 2025, and Defendant's failure to pay the sums due under said Agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. The Court's dismissal order of January 20, 2026, is hereby set aside and