Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings AMENDED July 29, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

310102 - THE PEOPLE vs SONORA MINING CORP - Defendant's Motion to Reopen and Amend Judgment - GRANTED. The Court has reviewed the moving papers, the Declaration of Anya Kwan, the original Stipulated Judgment entered June 5, 2006, and the proposed Amended Stipulated Judgment. No opposition has been filed.

The original Stipulated Judgment expressly provides that it may be amended or modified by a writing signed by the settling parties and approved by order of the Court. The proposed Amended Stipulated Judgment satisfies the amendment procedure established by Paragraph 22 of the original judgment. The original Stipulated Judgment expressly retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the settlement terms. The remediation framework established by the original judgment had not terminated when the amendment process was commenced, that ongoing remediation obligations remained in existence, and that the Court's retained jurisdiction had not expired when the proposed amendment was submitted for approval.

The amendment appears consistent with and furthers the objectives of the original judgment by maintaining environmental oversight, clarifying successor-owner obligations, updating property descriptions, and continuing funding for remediation activities. The original judgment expressly contemplated successor ownership, covenants running with the land, and future ownership changes. Because all current landowners have been noticed and affirmatively consented to the change, no prejudice against other parties is apparent. The approval of the amendment will not prejudice the public interest and will facilitate continued implementation of the remediation program established by the original judgment.

The Court approves the Amended Stipulated Judgment submitted with the moving papers and orders it entered as the judgment of the Court. The Court's retained jurisdiction under the original Stipulated Judgment shall continue as necessary to ensure compliance with the Amended Stipulated Judgment and its terms. The clerk is directed to reopen the matter for the limited purpose of entering this order and thereafter return the case to inactive status

CV-22-001871 - STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs PETERS, DARRIN KEITH - Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and Enforce a Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the parties of September, 2024, and Defendant's failure to pay the sums due under said Agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement in addition to interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiff's motion is granted. Including prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, judgment is entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $ 15,728.48 (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

CV-25-003433 - TORRES, CANDIDO RODRIGUEZ vs STANISLAUS COUNTY - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court is strongly inclined to grant the motion. However, because its logic is in part based on legal authority and analysis not offered by the parties, further briefing will be granted if requested; that is both mandatory and best practice in determining if I am correct.

This is a straightforward question: Does a risk management firm's otherwise statutorily compliant denial letter of a claim trigger the six-month statute of limitations, or is it insufficient to do so? This does not appear to have a straightforward answer either in the statutes or the case law, but the County appears to have the better argument. All objections are OVERRULED. The Court does not consider any legal conclusions reached by the declarants and bases any conclusions on the documents themselves and not on declarants' interpretations of them. The Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot, as I believe it is unnecessary in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

In this case, Plaintiff Rodriguez Torres crashed on April 11, 2023, and he and his wife Plaintiff Rodriguez presented a claim to the County on October 6, 2023. Notices of rejection were mailed on April 3, 2024. Plaintiff filed suit on April 11, 2025. Government Code section 945.6 provides for a six-month statute of limitations after receiving a denial, but a two -year statute from the date of the event if no denial is sent. Government code section 912.4 holds that the claim was deemed to have been rejected 45 days after its submission when no action was taken.

In this case, the original denial occurred by operation of law on November 20, 2023, well before the rejection letters were sent. While the county was well past the 45-day limit for their rejection, Katelaris v. County of Orange (2001) 92 Cal.App.4 th 1211 shortens the filing time to six months from the time of rejection even under these circumstances. If no notice is ever sent, the two-year limit applies. Tardy notice of rejection only delays the start of the six-month clock.

Plaintiffs argue that because the board or an authorized employee did not send the rejection letter, it is of no import. But in fact the rejection letter appears to comply with statutory notice; even though the outside contractor apparently believed it was rejecting the claim at that point, the claim had already been rejected by operation of law. No evaluation of the claim was necessary to make that determination, and the statutory scheme for enforcing the 45-day rule controls. Given that, the issue here is whether the contractor's notice is sufficient.

Even assuming the County did no investigation and did nothing, the notice requirement is designed to provide Plaintiffs with the specific information on when the time for filing the suit would expire. This notice did so, and the contractor had both apparent and actual authority to send the letter. Plaintiffs were on notice of the requirements to sue within six months of the rejection, and did not do so. Such a failure is jurisdictional and the motion is therefore likely to be granted.

If the Court reached the argument that the parties made, the motion would likely be granted. The County has provided uncontradicted evidence that it was involved in the determination of liability prior to the sending of the rejection letters, and the letters were sent at the request of the County.

CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Request for Production - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

OVERVIEW: Under these somewhat unusual circumstances, the information provided as to work-product objections is sufficient. No work product objections are available between Mr. Garrett-Steinman and his former clients (Evidence Code section 958). Attorney-client privilege is limited. The Court is sympathetic to the desire not to provide contact information to Plaintiff, but does not believe it appropriate to deny that witness information.

Plaintiff is cautioned that whatever the cause of disruptive behavior toward witnesses, the likely sanction for the sorts of communications that have occurred in the past is to terminate the case in Defendants' favor. Plaintiff is ordered to send no more than one email and make no more than one phone call within any three-day period without prior approval of the Court.