Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
OVERRULED. Any claim of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection shall be supported by a privilege log sufficient to evaluate the claim. The request to deem all objections waived is DENIED. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds Administrator's opposition was supported by substantial justification concerning the relationship between this proceeding and the related civil action. Moving Party to submit a proposed order in five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-23-001227 - CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION SYSTEM - Defendant's Motion to Strike - GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure section 436 authorizes the Court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter and any pleading or portion thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the Court.
The Court previously found that Plaintiffs' claims for damages are barred by sections 8.16 and 9.0 of the parties' ISISA, that any claim for delay damages would not be recoverable, and that the waiver contained in section 8.16 is effective and valid. The Court reiterated those findings in ruling on Defendants' motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint again includes requests and allegations seeking actual damages, delay damages, and related monetary relief. Those allegations and prayers are stricken.
The Court also previously rejected Plaintiffs' allegations that the ISISA or section 8.16 constitutes an unenforceable contract of adhesion or unconscionable release, finding such arguments unsupported and legally untenable in light of section 8.6 of the parties' agreement. Plaintiffs' renewed allegations that the Study Agreement is adhesive, that section 8.16 was hidden or outside Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations, or that section 8.16 is unconscionable are therefore stricken.
The Court further finds that the Third Amended Complaint continues to include allegations concerning the Oak Flat/Patterson project, Marshall/Enchanted Rock project, Ardilla project, TID policies and procedures, queue handling, ATC, CAISO/WEIM access, RFPs, transmission applications, PLR requirements, and alleged third-party economic relationships that exceed the permissible scope of amendment and/or reallege matters previously ordered stricken. In the March 2026 ruling, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to maintain only challenged portions relating to the Second Cause of Action or solely to the Government Claims Act compliance requirement for that cause of action. Plaintiffs may not retain previously stricken matter by relabeling it as background, motive, bad faith, or context. Those allegations are stricken.
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?”
The court does not find any particular allegation as necessary to the surviving Second Cause of Action and not inconsistent with the Court's prior orders. Without addressing the issue of whether Defendant's motion is barred for seeking to strike on new grounds that could have been raised earlier, the Court finds that the challenged provisions may be stricken to enforce conformity with the court's prior orders limiting the permissible scope of amendment. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 436(b). Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is granted. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 436 (a).
The Court grants the motion without further leave to amend as to material previously ordered stricken and realleged in the Third Amended Complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs seek further leave, Plaintiffs must make a showing identifying what additional facts could be pleaded that would cure the defects and explaining how any proposed amendment would comply with the Court's prior orders. Any leave to amend would be limited to conformity to the Court's orders and to the maintenance of allegations limited to Plaintiff's Implied Covenant claims and Government Claims Act compliance only.
CV-24-000280 - BACHICHA, MARIA vs WILLIAMS, SHAKEELAH - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED.
Good cause existing, the Court hereby GRANTS Counsel Kelly S. Moir leave to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Pedro Vega. The Court's order relieving Counsel shall take effect upon proof of service of same on Defendant. (CRC 3.1362). The Court will sign the Proposed Order.
CV-25-004323 - RICE, JAMES vs TERRACE AND DRIFTWOOD MHPS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED. Good cause existing, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel Michael Kahn's motion to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jerry Rice subject to clarification as to the mode of service of this motion on Plaintiff.
CV-24-002421 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs MIRANDA, RAYMOND - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, unopposed.
The Court finds, based on a review of the evidence adduced, notably, Petitioner's Request for Admissions, Set One deemed conclusively admitted by the Court on February 20, 2026, against Real Party in Interest Raymond Miranda in this matter, and Real Party in interest's conviction on August 9, 2024, of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, that the Respondent property $8,909.00 U.S. Currency was furnished or intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more of certain enumerated drug trafficking offenses, all of which occurred within five years of the seizure of the Respondent property, that said Respondent Property is subject to forfeiture and that Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment herein.
Code of Civil Procedure Sec.”2033.410; St. Mary v Superior Court (2014), 223 Cal.App. 4th 762.
The court further finds that no triable issue of fact remains as to Petitioner's petition for forfeiture of said sum. Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c). Summary judgment is accordingly hereby granted Petitioner.
CV-25-008787 - GHAI, CHARANJIT vs CITY OF CERES CITY COUNCIL - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court is inclined to DENY the petition for the reasons set forth below but will hear argument in this case.
Request for Judicial Notice
A court may take judicial notice of the existence and authenticity of public records, official acts, and similar materials. (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec.”452, 453.) However, judicial notice does not extend to the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual assertions contained in those materials. Nor may judicial notice be used in CEQA mandamus proceedings to introduce extra’record evidence to prove or justify an agency's decision, which must stand or fall on the administrative record before the agency at the time it acted. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 573-575 [discussing same]; cf. Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-1568 [discussing general principles of judicial notice].)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Respondent's and the real-parties-in-interest's request for judicial notice solely as to the existence of the identified documents and records. However, to the extent the responding parties are seek notice of the truth of disputed matters or consideration of extra’record evidence to support the merits, the request is DENIED.
Class 32 Infill Exemption
A project qualifies for the Class 32 infill exemption only if all five of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the project must be consistent with the general plan, zoning ordinance, and any applicable specific plan, including designation, density, and use; (2) the site is within city limits and located on a parcel substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) the site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) the site is adequately served by existing utilities and public services (e.g., water, sewer, fire, police). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Sec. 15332.)
The City can point to record evidence supporting each criterion. (See AR1033-AR1034; AR1252; AR1265;