Defendant County of Stanislaus's Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
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