Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
prejudice. The court's order barring Lion's Market's from adducing any evidence as to goodwill is tantamount to an issue and evidentiary sanction pursuant Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2023.030 (b) and (c), which is therefore granted based on Lion's Market's abuse of the discovery process.
Monetary sanctions are awarded in the amount of $4,200.00 against Lion's Market and their attorney of record, Tyler Kelly of The Ogden Law Firm, payable within fourteen days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order no later than July 28, 2026, that complies with the court's ruling.
CV-25-010636 - MOCHIZUKI, THOMAS H vs SOSA, EFREN - Plaintiff Thomas H. Mochizuki's Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents and Imposing Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant on April 14, 2026, or at all, without substantial justification. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. (Code of Civil Procedure Sec.2033.280(a)).
Furthermore, said Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted against Defendant in this matter for all purposes including trial. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762).
Additionally, sanctions of $1,410.00 are awarded against defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
CV-25-012513 - CARRILLO, HECTOR vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE - Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Code Civ. Proc. 10089(a) & 473(b)] - GRANTED.
The court finds that Petitioner's motion does not meet the requirement of "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" but is essentially a repetition of Petitioner's prior Motion to Vacate and Reset hearing. Code of Civ Pro Sec.1008(a); Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 765, 771;” Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 183
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?”
However, the court on its own motion reviews its prior ruling of May 14, 2026, and in the face of Petitioner's excusable mistake, diligence and lack of prejudice to Respondent, the Court grants the motion. The court hereby vacates and sets aside its ruling of May 14, 2026. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, as modified.
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate is reset for hearing on August 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this court for oral arguments only.
CV-26-003070 - PETRATOS, PANAGIOTIS vs VILLANUEVA, NASER - Plaintiff's Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - HEARING REQUIRED
Based on the moving papers, it appears that good cause exists for the court to conclude that the requirements of Civ Proc. Code Sec. 483.010(a) for a right to attach order and writ of attachment have been met. If the Application is granted, the Court will require plaintiff to deposit an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.00.
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***