Alothman, Esra v. Alshannag, Safa

Here, the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. As to the second cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The motion is granted without leave to amend as plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden of demonstrating the existence of additional factual allegations which could cure the deficiencies.

Defendant shall file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint on or before July 17, 2026.

6. S-CV-0054901 Zehring, Richard v. General Motors

Motion to Compel Deposition

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling deposition of defendant’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) and production of deposition documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(c) and imposing monetary sanctions of $2,500 against defense counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(j). The motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff’s motion was filed on January 20, 2026. However, plaintiff’s evidence in support of motion showed the deposition of defendant’s PMQ was scheduled by fourth amended deposition notice for February 3, 2026 and that plaintiff anticipated defendant would not comply with the deposition date. As there is no evidence the deposition of defendant’s PMQ did not proceed as scheduled on February 3, 2026, the court previously continued this motion to permit plaintiff to update the court on whether deposition occurred. (Law and motion minutes, Jun. 9, 2026.) However, plaintiff has not filed any updates for the court.

Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that the deposition of defendant’s PMQ did not proceed as scheduled. The motion to compel deposition is denied without prejudice. The motion for monetary sanctions is likewise denied without prejudice.

7. S-CV-0057527 Alothman, Esra v. Alshannag, Safa

This tentative ruling is issued by Commissioner Michael A. Jacques. If oral argument is requested, it will be heard on July 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 33 before Commissioner Michael A. Jacques.

Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside

Defendant moves to set aside this court’s order for a civil harassment restraining order. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Although the California Constitution requires the appointment of an interpreter for an accused in a criminal case (Cal. Const., art. I § 14), and Evidence Code section 752 requires the appointment of an interpreter for a witness who is not fluent in English, there

is no requirement that an interpreter be appointed for a civil litigant. (Jara v. Municipal Court for San Antonio Judicial District (1978) 21 Cal.3d 181, 185, 186.)

Upon review of the court record, there is no written record of the stipulation to a commissioner hearing the case. Therefore, defendant’s motion is granted.

As a matter of convenience, rather than vacating the long-term order and reinstating the temporary order, the long-term order will remain in place pending retrial. This matter is set for trial assignment on July 29, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3, which is located at 101 Maple Street, Auburn.

As this order renders plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees not ripe for review, the hearing on that motion set for July 22, 2026, is hereby vacated.

8. S-CV-0057553 In re the petition of Wepaymore Funding

Moving party is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement

The petition for approval of transfer of structured settlement payment rights is granted as prayed. In determining whether a proposed transfer should be approved, the court reviews the request to verify that the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5 (b).) The totality of the payee’s circumstances is viewed in light of the factors articulated in Insurance Code section 10139.5 (b)(1) through (15).

The court has carefully reviewed the petition, supporting declarations, and related attachments in light of the factors found in Insurance Code section 10139.5 (b) and finds (1) the transfer is in the best interest of the payee; (2) the payee has been provided a written advisement to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has knowingly waived the right to receive such advice; (3) the notification, disclosures, and transfer agreement comply with the requirements of Insurance Code sections 10136, 10138, and 10139.5; (4) the transfer does not contravene applicable law or order of the court; (5) the payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement; and (6) the payee does not wish to cancel the transfer agreement. Based upon the foregoing, the court approves the transfer.

9. S-CV-0057615 In re the petition of JG Wentworth Originations

Moving party is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

10