Petition for Order Confirming Appraisal Award; Respondent's Motion to Vacate Or, in the Alternative, Correct Appraisal Award
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 07, 2026 The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-001542 - ADAMS, JANICE vs NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY - a) Petition for Order Confirming Appraisal Award - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Respondent's Motion to Vacate Or, in the Alternative, Correct Appraisal Award - GRANTED in part as to correction. The total amount is listed as $505,789.30, but the total appears to be $505,789.25. As such, the Court makes this correction.
a-b) On April 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified petition for order confirming appraisal award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1292.2. The filing included the April 20, 2026 Declaration of Nicholas J. Loncarich. On June 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. The reply included the June 11, 2026 Declaration of Nicholas J. Loncarich, which was filed in two parts. No opposition was filed. On June 18, 2026, the Court continued the matter and approved the filing of Respondent's original opposition, a declaration by Mr.
Boggs regarding effort to file opposition, and an opposition by Mr. Loncarich. The Court is unable to locate Respondent's original opposition and any declaration by Mr. Boggs regarding efforts to file an opposition to the petition for order confirming appraisal award. Instead, it appears Respondent filed a June 20, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Josiah Boggs addressing efforts to file Respondent's competing motion to vacate after the original motion had been filed and served by e-mail. It does not appear that Respondent ever opposed the petition, although he told the court he had.
On June 11, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1286.2 and 1286.6, and applicable insurance policy provisions, along with a two-page memorandum of points and authorities. The filing included the June 11, 2026 Declaration of Josiah Boggs. Respondent also filed the June 20, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Josiah Boggs which addresses efforts to file the motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award. On June 23, 2026, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent's motion to vacate.
"Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1285.) "If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1286.) Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1286.2 sets forth specific grounds for vacation of award.
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?”
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1286.6 sets forth specific grounds for correction of award. "A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1288.) "A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner." (Id.) "A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition except that if the petition is served in the manner provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1290.4, the response shall be served and filed within 30 days after service of the petition." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 1290.6.)
Petitioner argues correctly that Respondent has filed no opposition to the petition. The Court nonetheless considers the merits. Courts must confirm an appraisal award unless statutory grounds exist to vacate or correct it. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1286.) Awards should normally stand immune to judicial scrutiny. (Moncharsh v. Heilly and Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4 th 1, 10). Nonetheless, it appears that the requested award is indisputably five cents off, and the correct amount is $505,789.25, not $505,789.30. Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED in the amount of $505,789.25.
Respondent's competing motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award contains two short paragraphs of generalized, unsupported argument. Where a party fails to support arguments with specific facts or evidence, those arguments may be deemed waived. Arguments must be presented in the motion itself, not raised solely through declaration evidence. (See, e.g., Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 931, 934-935 [arguments not raised in the motion are forfeited]; see also Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [stating that the supporting memorandum "must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced."].) Respondent's motion does not adequately allege the sort of fraud or other grounds for invalidity which would enable the Court to make some other correction. The allegations made are, as Petitioner asserts, precisely the sort for which judicial review is unavailable.
Respondent's motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award is GRANTED for the arithmetic error and the amount is modified to $505,789.25.
CV-24-008226 - MEDINA, JOHN JR vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC - Motion to Continue Trial - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has questions.
CV-24-008540 - TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission - DENIED.
On April 27, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to eleven requests for admission arguing that the responses are unverified and that many are evasive or incomplete, particularly where Plaintiff fails to identify any document supporting its response. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections.
On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues the parties' meet and confer was not sufficient because the motion contains arguments not addressed during the meet and confer. Plaintiff states that it attempted to serve the verifications on March 9, 2026, just after the parties meet and confer phone call, but inadvertently attached the wrong document. The verifications were served on April 24, 2026, three days before Defendant filed its motion. Plaintiff also argues that the separate statement Defendant submitted is improper. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's separate statement contains paraphrased requests and flattened responses instead of the verbatim text. Plaintiff also argues that its responses are sufficient because Plaintiff answered each request and because no rule requires Plaintiff to support its responses with documents.
On June 29, 2026, Defendant filed a reply which largely argues that Plaintiff may not provide both objections and a response to a request for admission. Defendant argued that it does not contend that Plaintiff must identify supporting documents. As to the separate statement, Defendant argues that the separate statement it submitted is not an issue because Defendant also served the original requests and responses attached as Exhibit A to the April 28, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Todd Elliott.
On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an objection to Defendant's new arguments submitted on reply. The same day, Defendant submitted a response to Plaintiff's objection to new arguments submitted on reply. The Court does not consider the latter two documents, as they are unauthorized.
Defendant misapprehends the purpose of a compliant separate statement. The Court is supposed to be able to look at the separate statement and determine the issues in each request. The editing of the requests which deletes the reference to the 1996 easement ought not be fatal, but failing to include the complete responses is. The failure to substantially comply with Rule 3.1345 dooms the motion. Defendant's invitation to locate the actual requests elsewhere is declined for the reasons aptly noted by Plaintiff. "Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.010.) "No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030.)