Compliance Hearing
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 30, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-23-007395 - ROSA, ISIDRO DE LA vs GJ SILVA DAIRY INC - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED. Based on the declaration of Cassandra Polites submitted on 6-24-26, the Court finds that compliance has been demonstrated and no hearing is necessary. Class counsel shall submit a form of amended judgment directing that unclaimed settlement funds in the amount of $10,103.33, plus any accrued interest, shall be distributed to the parties' agreed cy pres recipient
CV-24-004750 - GOODY,JAMES JOSEPH vs FARINELLI, ALBERT - a) Defendants Maria Luz Vargas and Jesse Vargas' Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendants Yolanda Arnette Mccoy's and Eulene Ramsey's Motion for Leave to File their Amended Answer - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment pursuant to the application of the "sudden emergency" or "imminent peril" doctrine herein. Specifically, the undisputed evidence submitted herein supports the conclusion that Defendant, Maria Luz Vargas, acting with reasonable care, was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency she did not cause. (Shiver v. Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395, 397.) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. In view of the lack of opposition, Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden. Therefore, judgment is GRANTED in favor of the moving defendants herein.
b) Defendants Yolanda Arnette McCoy and Eulene Ramsey move to amend their answer to include three new affirmative defenses. The motion is unopposed. "The court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) "Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 576.) "Such amendments generally may occur 'at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice' (Sec. 576) so long as the amendments do not raise new issues against which the opposing party has had no opportunity to defend. [Citations.]" (
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?”
Here, Defendants McCoy and Ramsey seek leave to amend their respective Answers to include three new affirmative defenses that were not included in their original Answers. The first is the assertion of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine; the second is the assertion of Negligence Per Se; and the third is the assertion of Assumption of the Risk. (Memorandum at p. 4.) Defendants contend that sufficient facts supporting the proposed affirmative defenses became known after the parties engaged in limited discovery. Having considered the Defendants' motion, memorandum and accompanying declaration, and proposed amendments, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by the moving parties. Defendants shall file their respective amended Answers within ten court days of the signed order.
CV-25-002637 - CASTANEDA, GUADALUPE vs NUTALL, DAVID EUGENE - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.
CV-26-005475 - ADAME, ADRIANA vs ALBA, MELISA - Motion to Quash Service of Summons - HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: