Defendant American Medical Response West's Motion for Summary Judgment
Further, supporting documentation appears to adhere more closely to Ms. Lopez's version of events. The record contains evidence establishing that decedent was not admitted to the facility until September 21, 2023, the day after the arbitration agreement was signed. Facility admission records reflect an admission date of September 21, 2023, and Plaintiffs' evidence further shows that Valerie Lopez signed the admission and arbitration documents on September 20, 2023, while decedent was still hospitalized and not present at the facility. (See 6/11/26 Fish Decl., Exhs. 1-5.)
In addition, there is a "required" section that should have been completed explaining Ms. Lopez's authority to sign on her father's behalf, but that section of the paperwork was left blank. (See 11/14/25 Warkentin Decl., Exh. A [pdf p. 9].) Finally, the only power of attorney agreement presented to the Court is dated January 5, 2024. (See 11/14/25 Morris Decl., Exh. C.) It was not in effect at the time that the admission paperwork was executed.
Conclusion
Because it appears to the Court that Ms. Lopez lacked actual or ostensible authority to sign on behalf of the decedent on admission to the facility, it further appears that no valid agreement was formed.
CV-25-012584 - PAIGE, DONALD vs DINAPOLI, MARY ELISBETH - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED without prejudice. It does not appear sufficient notice was given.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-26-002034 - ALFARO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR INC vs ATHWAL INVESTMENTS LP - a) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant's Writ of Attachment - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Cross-Defendant Alfaro Farm Labor Contractor Inc.'s Demurrer to Cross Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Cross Defendant Alfaro Farm Labor Contractor Inc.'s Motion to Strike Cross Complaint - HEARING REQUIRED.
PR-23-000109 - IN THE MATTER OF LEO LANDUCCI AND PATRICIA LANDUCCI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF 2007 - Respondent Kathleen Landucci's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs - HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-001883 - BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs BROWN, GIA - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal with Prejudice (C.C.P. Sections 1008(A), 473) - DENIED. The Court finds that Plaintiff's request for reconsideration was not timely filed pursuant to CCP Sec. 1008(a). In addition, Plaintiff's request for relief based on counsel's affidavit of fault has not been presented in the proper form, as no proposed pleading has been submitted. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(b).)
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?”
CV-24-002604 - CANO, MARIA vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs of Defendant Silvia Diego, M.D. [C.C.P. 1033.5] - DENIED. Defendant Diego is the prevailing party following summary judgment and is entitled to recover allowable costs as a matter of right under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subject to plaintiffs' burden to show that particular items are not authorized, not reasonably necessary, or unreasonable in amount. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1033.5; Ladas v.
California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) Plaintiffs have not met that burden on this record. The Court further finds that Dr. Diego's Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers served 1-17-25 were made in good faith based on the information available at the time, and plaintiffs did not obtain a more favorable judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 998, subd. (c)(1); Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 698-699.) Accordingly, in the Court's discretion, Dr.
Diego's post-offer expert witness fees are recoverable. Records subpoena/medical records costs are allowed as reasonably necessary costs of taking depositions/obtaining records in this medical negligence action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1033.5, subd. (a)(3); Evers v. Cornelson (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 310, 317.) Defendant Silvia Diego, M.D. is awarded costs in the amount stated in her Memorandum of Costs: $29,740.46.
CV-24-007017 - LOCKWOOD, VEOLA vs CARPENTER, KEVID MD - Defendant American Medical Response West's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Based on the moving arguments and evidence, including the declaration of Kristin Weivoda and Barry Marsh and the attachments thereto, and in the absence of any opposition, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint herein. Specifically, the Court finds the undisputed facts support the conclusion that (1) Defendant's personnel met the applicable standard of care in the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff's decedent; and (2) Defendant is entitled to the statutory immunity provided in Health & Safety Code Sec. 1799.107, as no allegation or evidence of bad faith or gross negligence is present herein.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-24-004401 - FLETES, IMELDA vs GROSSMAN, ERNEST - a) Defendant's Motion to Deem Matters Admitted; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part.
a) MOOT in part, granted in part. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross Defendant Ernest Grossman failed to timely respond to Defendant/Cross Complainant Rico's Pizza's Request for Admissions, Set One served on January 8, 2026, but that since the filing of this motion Mr. Grossman has served responses that are substantially compliant with Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.2033.220. Therefore, the Court is not required to and does not order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests are deemed admitted.
See Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec.'s 2033.220, 2033.280(c). However, the Court finds that the filing of this motion was necessary to elicit Mr. Grossman's responses, and therefore the Court finds that Rico's Pizza is entitled to monetary sanctions of $225.00 for attorney's fees reasonably incurred pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec.'s 2023.010(d), 2033.280(c) and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a). Said sanctions are awarded against Ernest Grossman and are to be paid by no later than 9/8/26.
b) MOOT in part, granted in part. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross Defendant Ernest Grossman failed to timely respond to Defendant/Cross Complainant Rico's Pizza's Requests for Production served on January 8, 2026. The Court notes that Mr. Grossman has served responses since the filing of this motion. However, the Court finds that this motion was necessary to elicit Mr. Grossman's responses, and therefore the Court finds that Rico's Pizza is entitled to monetary sanctions of $210.00 for its reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Sec.Sec.2031.300(c), 2023.010 (d) and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348 (a). Said sanctions are awarded against Ernest Grossman and are to be paid by no later than 9/8/26.
c) MOOT in part, granted in part. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross Defendant Ernest Grossman failed to timely respond to Defendant/Cross Complainant Rico's Pizza's properly propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One served on Ernest Grossman on January 8, 2026, but that since the filing of this motion Mr. Grossman has served responses. However, the Court finds this motion was necessary to elicit Mr. Grossman's said responses and accordingly finds that Rico's Pizza is entitled to monetary sanctions of $225.00 for attorney's fees reasonably incurred in bringing this motion pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc.Sec.Sec.2030.290(c) 2023.010(d) and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a). Said sanctions are awarded against Ernest Grossman and are to be paid by no later than 9/8/26.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***