a) Petitioner Stuart Jones' Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 23, 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-24-006546 - JACKSON, THUY vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED.
Defendants, as the moving parties, have met their burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on the two remaining causes of action in the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).) Based on the declarations of William A. Fogelman and Shiv Samtani and the evidence submitted therewith, as well as the matters subject to judicial notice herein, Defendants have demonstrated compliance with Civ. Code Sec. 2924.9.
The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing the existence of material factual disputes preventing judgment. Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden in this regard. The Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted no evidence and erroneously relies on the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint to support her position, which is insufficient on summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).) Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment herein.
Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court further notes that Plaintiff's objections are not submitted in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court declines to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)
PR-22-000750 - ESTATE OF MAYHUE, WENDY D - a) Petitioner Stuart Jones' Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Responses from Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Administrator, Joseph Mayhue, for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a) Requests for Production, Set Two
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 motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Administrator Joseph Mayhue shall serve verified further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, Nos. 3 through 5, within 20 days of service of the order and shall produce all responsive, nonprivileged documents. Objections based on relevance, overbreadth, privacy, and the existence of the related civil action are OVERRULED. Any responsive documents containing account numbers or comparable identifying financial information may be appropriately redacted.
Any claim of privilege shall be supported by a privilege log. 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.
b) Special Interrogatories, Set Two
The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Administrator Joseph Mayhue shall serve verified code-compliant further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 10 through 14, within 20 days of service of the order. Objections based solely on relevance, overbreadth, privacy, and the existence of the related civil action are 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.
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.