WELLS FARGO BANK, NA v. RATNAGOPAL

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 4, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 25CV01700

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA v. RATNAGOPAL

PLAINTIFF WELLS FARGO BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §664.6

The parties shall appear and update the Court on their settlement efforts.

No. 25CV03816 (related to 24CV02263)

WOODS v. PACIFIC BELL, et al

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

This motion is continued to October 20, 2026.

Plaintiff brings this action for damage to a bridge on his property. Plaintiff contends the damage was caused by the negligent acts of an AT&T service technician.

On August 9, 2024, plaintiff Woods (“Woods”) filed a complaint (24CV02263) against Pacific Bell dba AT&T, Old Republic Insurance Company, Marsh USA, Inc., and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. for negligence, vicarious liability, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and fraudulent deceit. This case was dismissed with prejudice on February 6,