Defendant Valley Industrial Park LP's Motion for Summary Adjudication
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 24, 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-23-007620 - WRIGHT, ERIKA vs VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK LP - Defendant Valley Industrial Park LP's Motion for Summary Adjudication - GRANTED.
Cross-Complainant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to adjudication of the issues presented herein in its favor. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).)
Based on the declaration of William Pinkley and the evidence presented thereby, Cross-Complainant has demonstrated that Cross-Defendant owes a contractual duty to defend and indemnify in connection with Plaintiff's claims against Cross-Complainant herein. Specifically, the undisputed evidence establishes that the subject incident arose out of, involved, or occurred in connection with Cross-Defendant's use and/or occupancy of the premises, as provided in the parties' lease. (See, e.g., UMFs 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, 40.)
The burden then shifts to Cross-Defendant to submit admissible evidence establishing the existence of material factual disputes preventing adjudication of the issues presented herein. The Court finds that Cross-Defendant has failed to meet that burden.
In that regard, the Court notes that the essence of Cross-Defendant's purported dispute concerns the legal significance of the evidence as it relates to the application of the subject indemnity clause in the lease. However, the Court finds that Cross-Defendant's primary cited authority, Morlin Asset Management LP v. Murachanian (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 184 is inapposite on these facts.
In addition, while Cross-Defendant suggests the application of the exception for the lessor's gross negligence or willful misconduct, the evidence presented on those issues consists primarily of speculation and is insufficient to create a material factual dispute on that claim. (See, e.g., Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163
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?”
Cross-Defendant's objections to evidence are OVERRULED.
PR-26-000222 - ESTATE OF RUIZ, LILA JENNIE - Petitioner Frank Martinez's Motion to Strike Misleading, Irrelevant, False, and Prejudicial Allegations from Response and Objections to Petition of Frank Martinez for Letters of Administration - DENIED.
Petitioner Frank Martinez's Motion to Strike Misleading, Irrelevant, False, and Prejudicial Allegations from Respondent Francine McLean's Response and Objections to Petition for Letters of Administration is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
The challenged allegations concern Petitioner's alleged prior criminal conduct and are offered in support of respondent's contention that petitioner is not competent or suitable to serve as personal representative under Probate Code Sec.Sec. 8402 and 8502. As such, the allegations bear on issues currently before the Court and are facially relevant.
Further, Petitioner has not established through competent evidence that the challenged allegations are false as a matter of law. Petitioner's declaration creates, at most, a factual dispute concerning the nature, disposition, and significance of the prior events. Such factual disputes are not appropriately resolved through a motion to strike.
The Court will determine, in connection with the competing petitions for appointment of a personal representative, what weight, if any, should be afforded to the challenged allegations and any evidence supporting or refuting them. No order striking any portion of Respondent's Response and Objections will issue.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: