DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PR-23-000289·stanislaus·Civil·Trust Administration
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST

Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2026
Department
22
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 30, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerAngela Estacio

Attorneys

Rebecca H. Semfor Petitioner

Ruling

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 21, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings 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-25-011679 - BAUSER, TIMOTHY vs GREEN, MATTHEW MILTON - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - DROPPED. Pursuant to the notice of withdrawal filed on July 16, 2026, the hearing on this motion is DROPPED.

CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Partition Action for Lack of Jurisdiction - DENIED. The motion to dismiss--which appears to be a reiteration of a prior motion to dismiss that was heard on June 11, 2026--is again DENIED as procedurally defective. As Plaintiff states in her opposition to the motion, "... California law does not authorize dismissal of a complaint through a freestanding motion to dismiss based upon the grounds asserted in Defendant's motion. Rather, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides specific procedural mechanisms for challenging a pleading, each governed by its own statutory requirements." (Opp., at p. 3.) Such procedural mechanisms include a demurrer, a motion to strike, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Alternatively, a party may file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

Plaintiff has requested that the Court sanction Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128.7 or any other applicable statute. That request is DENIED at this time; a motion for sanctions under Sec. 128.7 must strictly comply with certain procedural requirements, including that the motion must be made separately from any other motion and must provide a safe-harbor period. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7(c)(1).) However, Defendant should consider himself on notice that any failure to heed Court advisements and the repeated filing of motions making the same arguments may result in monetary sanctions in the future.

PR-23-000289 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Petitioner, Angela Estacio and her Counsel of Record, Rebecca H. Sem - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the continued motion for consolidation on calendar that day.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-25-000613 - LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III - a) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medial Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED. a-d) HEARING REQUIRED. Defense counsel shall appear to demonstrate compliance with the Court's 5-29-26 order.

CV-25-011776 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs FREAR, ALYSSA D - Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions as Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share