Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 10, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-22-004091 - DISCOVER BANK vs SEPULVEDA, ANASTASIA - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Judgment - DENIED without prejudice, and unopposed.
On June 12, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) "Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Id.)
The motion is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service on the Plaintiff. Even if the motion was served on Plaintiff, the motion is likely untimely. Section 473(b) requires that motions for relief "shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment . . . was taken." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) The default and default judgment were entered on December 6, 2022. Defendant knew about the case at least as of June 2025 when Plaintiff attempted to garnish her wages but did not file the instant motion until a year later. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-26-000923 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MARTINEZ, AARON - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and for nonappearance. Plaintiff's notice of motion states that Plaintiff submits the motion on the moving papers pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1304(c) and will not appear at the hearing in open court. The motion is unopposed.
"If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)
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?”
Plaintiff's declaration states that Plaintiff propounded Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant and received no response. Plaintiff requests that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified be deemed admitted. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with its motion.
CV-26-001914 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs COOPER, BRANDON W - Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court notes that Defendant's Opposition was untimely filed but exercises its broad discretion to consider same. (Jack v. Ring LLC, (2023); 91 Cal. App. 5th 1186; Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755).
The Court is inclined to grant the motion subject to the required hearing, based on its initial finding that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled prejudgment possession by eminent domain of (1) a fee interest of 7,758 square feet, (2) an access easement 9,576 square feet and (3) a drainage easement of 18,569 square feet via eminent domain over portions of the real property located at 531 N. Hart Road, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, and bearing Stanislaus County Assessor's Parcel Number 012-042-018 ("Larger Property"), for its planned State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.
The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $122,000.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated an overriding need to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in herein, and that Plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited. Further, the hardship to the Plaintiff of denying immediate possession outweighs the hardship to the Defendant of granting immediate possession. (Robinson v. Superior Ct., (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 1144).
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-008326 - PAYNE, KELLIE vs MOCSE CREDIT UNION - Defendant Mocse Credit Union's Motion to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Despite the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1294, as amended, the Court retains discretion to stay further proceedings in the interest of justice. (See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Amerisourcebergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14). Therefore, based on the moving papers, and in view of the lack of opposition herein, the Court finds, in the interest of justice, that further proceedings in the instant action should be STAYED pending the determination of the appeal of the Court's previous order denying arbitration.
CV-25-003490 - KEITH, KRISTIE ANN vs ALDEN PETERSON & SONS INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Substitution of Successor in Interest for Deceased Plaintiff - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff's counsel.
CV-24-009764 - CISNEROS, FRANK vs RIVETS AMERICAN GRILL INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court, and subject to clarification of the following issues by the parties:
The Court notes the designation of "Without Permission" as the cy pres recipient of unclaimed settlement funds herein; however, the motion fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to conclude that its designation complies with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 384, which specifies that the unclaimed residual should be distributed "to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent." Counsel shall ensure that the proper information is presented to the Court in this regard at the time of the final approval motion.
The Court notes that the parties' agreement calls for funding of the settlement in 2 separate installment payments, with the provision that the administrator will disburse settlement funds after each payment. This requirement seems to be at odds with the information provided in the Class Notice, which advises class members that their respective portions of the settlement will be disbursed in "a single check." This language may be misleading in the event that a class member receives multiple settlement disbursements in connection with the defense's installment payments. Counsel shall meet and confer to resolve this issue and shall be prepared to demonstrate the same to the Court at the time of the final approval motion.
Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in