Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order #1
accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter: 8-10-26 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator 8-24-26 Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members. 10-23-26 Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds 5-14-27 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for June 8, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court. The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
CV-25-009269 - EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant County of Stanislaus's Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant failed to submit proof of service of the instant motion on Defendants City of Modesto and Sam Cullom. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1014.)
CV-23-004326 - WIGGINS, JOSHUA vs COLEMAN, TIMOTHY - a) Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena of Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 31, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Angelo Gonzalez and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) Due to the parties' late submission of the required Joint Status Statement, together with the parties' representation that no compromise has been reached on any of the issues described in the instant motion, the Court requires more time to review the papers in this matter.
b) In view of the lack of opposition to the defense's evidence that Mr. Gonzalez is not a resident of the state of California, it appears that he cannot be compelled to testify at the trial of this matter. (See, e.g. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107.)
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
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-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order #1 - DENIED. The Court finds that Plaintiff's 3/20/26 Motion for Sanctions for Misuse of the Discovery Process Against Zen and Attorney of Record, Jointly and Severally, which resulted in the issuance of the challenged 5/20/26 ruling, was based on substantially the same conduct by Defendant and their Counsel as alleged in Plaintiff's 1/8/26 Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents on Defendant and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Zen and its Attorney Jointly and Severally and to Hold Attorney Kallis in Contempt of Court; and Defendant's failure to comply with the Court's Order of 11/14/25 to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Additionally, both motions sought monetary sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs.
Therefore, regardless of the fact that Plaintiff's 1/8/26 motion was brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2031.310 (h) and 1008 (b), and Plaintiff's 3/20/26 motion was brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2023.010, the Court properly considered the 3/20/26 motion a rehash of the 1/8/26 motion and declined to reconsider its prior 3/12/26 ruling and award the requested sanctions. Notably, a court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision of the Act. City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 46.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant engaged in an unusual form of discovery abuse or a pattern of abuse not already addressed by a relevant provision of the Act that required the invocation of the Court's independent authority to impose sanctions under different considerations than those previously undertaken by the Court. A trial court abuses its discretion when it exceeds the bounds of reason in exercising it, having considered all the circumstances before it. The Court of Appeal evaluates abuse of discretion relative to the legal principles governing the subject of the action. In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 481.
On this record, and relative to the principles expressed in the provisions of the Discovery Act governing the imposition of (monetary) sanctions, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any conduct by the Court exceeding the bounds of reason in the exercise thereof. The record also does not show a defect in notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the 5/20/26 decision. Rather, it shows no appearances and no hearing request when the matter was called, and confirmation of a tentative ruling. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's characterization of the motion as a rehash does not, on this record, demonstrate that the order was void or entered in excess of jurisdiction that would support vacating the said ruling.
Furthermore, Plaintiff's arguments in support of vacatur are premised on a mistaken belief that Defendant did not oppose the 3/20/26 motion. The Court file shows that Defendant filed their opposition to the motion on 4/29/26 with proof of service on file dated 4/29/26, demonstrating service on Plaintiff by USPS mail. Notably Plaintiff did not assert any lack of any opposition by requesting a hearing after the tentative ruling was issued. The Court finds it surprising that Plaintiff is seemingly raising this issue now, apparently without foundation.
Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff's contentions of judicial bias and lack of judicial integrity are also based on this mistaken belief that the motion on which the challenged order is based was unopposed, Plaintiff's arguments in that regard are heavily discredited. The Court therefore finds that the Court's 5/20/26 ruling is supported and well-reasoned and demonstrates the proper exercise of the Court's discretion herein. In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 481; Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2023.010 and 2023.030; City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 46; Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (d).
"Submission on a tentative ruling is neutral; it conveys neither agreement nor disagreement with the analysis." Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Bay Area Toll Auth. (2020) 51 Cal. App. 5th 435, 446, citing to Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1401. Plaintiff cannot be held to have waived his right to seek relief from the 5/20/26 order. However, Plaintiff has also not identified any new facts or a procedural irregularity in the 5/20/26 proceedings. The docketed sequence shows the Court's discretion was properly exercised against repetitive motion practice and lack of diligence by Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to vacate and set aside the Court's order dated 5/20/26 as void as a matter of law and also denies Plaintiff's alternative request to modify the 5/20/26 order and grant Plaintiff's attorney fees against Defendant Zen and his attorney of record jointly and severally.
CV-25-001020 - LC, JANE DOE vs MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED. Good cause existing, the Court hereby GRANTS Counsel Steven Derby leave to withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Aguirre. The Court's order relieving Counsel shall take effect upon proof of service of same on Defendant. (CRC 3.1362). The Court will sign the Proposed Order.
CV-25-009803 - DOLZADELLI, CHELSEA vs SALAS, OSCAR - a) Defendants the Frontier, LLC and Oscar Salas Demurrer to Plaintiff's First-Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, OVERRULED, in part, with leave to amend; b) Defendant the Frontier, LLC and Oscar Salas Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's First-Amended Complaint - DENIED.
a) SUSTAINED, in part, OVERRULED, in part, with leave to amend. The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. Defendants The Frontier, LLC and Oscar Salas demur to the First Cause of Action (Negligence), Second Cause of Action (Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention), and Fourth Cause of Action (Premises Liability) of