SMITH, IMANI vs AMADOR, VANESSA

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