Motion for judgment on the pleadings
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026
These are the tentative rulings for civil law and motion matters set at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2026. The tentative ruling will be the court’s final ruling unless notice of appearance and request for oral argument are given to all parties and the court by 4:00 p.m., Monday, July 6, 2026. Notice of request for oral argument to the court must be made by calling (916) 408-6481. Requests for oral argument made by any other method will not be accepted. Prevailing parties are required to submit orders after hearing to the court within 10 court days of the scheduled hearing date, and after approval as to form by opposing counsel. Court reporters are not provided by the court. Parties may provide a court reporter at their own expense.
Except as otherwise noted, these tentative rulings are issued by the HONORABLE TRISHA J. HIRASHIMA and if oral argument is requested, it will be heard at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.
PLEASE NOTE: REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED FOR ALL CIVIL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS. (Local Rule 10.24.) More information is available at the court’s website: www.placer.courts.ca.gov.
1. M-CV-0088382 Bank of America v. Hovsepian, Sahaq Bishara
Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment under Settlement
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment for plaintiff as against defendant is granted. (Code Civ Proc., § 664.6.) Dismissal entered on March 19, 2025 is vacated and judgment is entered for plaintiff in the total amount of $2,686.70 (principal in the amount of $2,103.09 and court costs in the reduced amount of $583.61, as this motion fee was a mere $60.00).
2. M-CV-0095441 Iver Capital Corp. v. Alvarado, Amber
Moving party is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)
Motion for judgment on the pleadings
Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant has not filed a response.
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent of a general demurrer.” (
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?”
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485; see also Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549, disapproved on other grounds in Black Sky Capital LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156.) The court, however, does not accept the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Spencer, 88 Cal.App.5th at 861.)
Defendant admitted the allegations of the complaint in her answer. As defendant filed no opposition to the present motion, the evidence presented is unopposed on the record. (Arce 181 Cal.App.4th at 485; Evans 28 Cal.App.4th at 549.) Defendant motion alleges the costs of the suit are $468.50, but defendant has not submitted a memorandum of costs in support.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff for the principal of $17,851.63; for pre-judgment interest (at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from March 3, 2023,) to the date judgment is entered, as alleged in the complaint; and for $960.00 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is awarded costs of suit in an amount to be determined upon filing and service of a memorandum of costs.
3. S-CV-0052372 Baddawi, Samira v. Mi Pueblito Taqueria
Defendants’ joint motion to compel neuropsychological examination of plaintiff is continued to July 14, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32.
4. S-CV-0053711 City of Lincoln v. The Gathering Inn
If oral argument is requested, it will be heard in Department 32 by the Honorable Trisha J. Hirashima.
Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash
Plaintiff moves for a protective order to prevent defendant The Gathering Inn from taking the deposition of current City Councilmember Ben Brown and former City Councilmember Paul Joiner. Plaintiff also moves to quash the deposition subpoena as to former Councilmember Joiner. Defendant opposes the motion.
2