Objector's Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records or in the Alternative for a Protective Order; and for Sanctions Against Samantha Ann Farley
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 14, 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:
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 Court finds Respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party on the special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c).
Petitioner's opposition, even if considered despite its untimeliness, does not challenge any specific billing entry, hourly rate, or cost item and largely addresses issues relating to the merits of the underlying ruling, which are not before the Court on this motion.
However, the Court's review of the moving, reply, and supporting papers reveals apparent inconsistencies regarding the total amount of fees sought. Different figures appear in the submitted materials, and it is unclear from the present record what precise amount Respondent requests the Court to award.
Accordingly, the Court will hear argument regarding the calculation of the requested award and the reconciliation of the amounts reflected in the moving papers, supporting declaration, and reply before determining the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.
The issue of entitlement is resolved. The only issue to be addressed at hearing is the correct amount of recoverable fees and costs.
PR-25-000323 - Estate of FARLEY, WALLACE ALLAN - Objector's Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records or in the Alternative for a Protective Order; and for Sanctions Against Samantha Ann Farley - CONTINUED per the parties' joint request to October 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-003417 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs SMITH, TANNER - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Leave to Defend Action - DENIED.
It appears that Defendant relies on the wrong code section in seeking relief. Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473.5 applies in the situation where there has been proper service of summons but the defendant nevertheless did not find out about the action in time to defend.
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?”
Here, Defendant argues that proper service was not accomplished, as he denies receipt of process despite the registered process server's attestation that Defendant was personally served.
In addition, Defendant failed to submit a proposed answer with his moving papers, which is required by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473.5(b).
Under the circumstances, it appears that Defendant's options for relief are limited to demonstrating that service was never accomplished, making the judgment void under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(d), or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic mistake or fraud which prevented him from being able to represent his interests in the matter while it was pending, thus warranting exercise of the Court's equitable powers to set the judgment aside.
Where a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction due to effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4 th 403, 413.)
However, a filed proof of service by a registered process server that complies with the statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Evid. Code Sec. 647; Floveyor International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (Shick Tube-Veyor Corp.) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4 th 789, 795; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4 th 1426, 1441-1442.)
Here, Defendant presents only his own