Motion to lift stay
TENTATIVE RULINGS LAW & MOTION CALENDAR Wednesday, August 5, 2026, 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 16 – Various for Hon. Patrick M. Broderick 3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa
TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE, Courtroom 16 Meeting ID: 161-460-6380 Passcode: 840359 https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1614606380?pwd=NUdpOEZ0RGxnVjBzNnN6dHZ6c0ZQZz09
TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE, By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above): (669) 254-5252 US (San Jose)
The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. the court day immediately before the day of the hearing. Parties in motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
PLEASE NOTE: The Court WILL NOT provide a court reporter for this calendar. If there are any concerns, please contact the Court at the number provided above.
1. 24CV00302, Craker v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiff Kevin Lee Craker (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order lifting the stay imposed in this matter and restoring the case to the active trial calendar. The motion is made on the grounds that arbitration has not been initiated, cannot proceed in its current posture, and that continuation of the stay deprives Plaintiff of any forum for resolution. In opposition, Defendant Chrysler Capital (“Defendant”) states that on March 24, 2026, it commenced arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).
The case is Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Kevin Craker, AAA Case Number 01-26-0001-4230. As such, Defendant argues this motion is moot. In reply, Plaintiff argues that the motion is not moot on various grounds. However, each argument fails to recognize that Plaintiff has already been ordered by this court to arbitrate this matter. The matter was ordered to arbitration on May 30, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a timely motion for reconsideration of that order. None of the issues raised in reply—such as that Plaintiff objected to Defendant paying arbitration fees on his behalf and that no arbitrator has yet been appointed— change the fact that this court currently only has limited jurisdiction over this matter.
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?”
Once a case is ordered to arbitration, the trial court only has vestigial jurisdiction over the case to appoint an 1
arbitrator; grant limited provisional remedies; and confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. (SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1200.) Absent an agreement to withdraw the controversy from arbitration, no judicial act is authorized. (Ibid.) It is currently the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy, including procedural issues. (Ibid.) Defendant requests sanctions pursuant to CCP section 128.7 arguing this motion is frivolous.
The motion was filed before Defendant initiated arbitration, at a time when Plaintiff indicated he could not afford the arbitration fee, suggesting Plaintiff believed this action could proceed in this court. Therefore, the court will deny Defendant’s request for sanctions. The motion is DENIED for the reasons stated. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.
2. 24CV06966, Herrera v. Espinosa
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Roger O. Herrera and Faye Chang Herrera, as Trustees of the Chang Herrera Family Revocable Trust (“XDs”), demur to the cross-complaint (“XC”) filed by Defendants/Cross-Complainants George J. Espinosa, Martha E. Fritz, and Cross-Complainants Mary Ann Espinosa and Alex Espinosa (“XCs”) on the grounds that the XC is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On July 23, 2026, XCs filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer to the initial cross-complaint is DENIED as MOOT.
3. 24CV07722, Dunkelis v. B&D Insulation
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
I. Introduction - Motion to Compel Responses – Defendant Cox (Motion #1) Plaintiff Diana Dunkelis (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant David Bryan Cox (“Defendant Cox”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $246.57. II. Service and Failure to Respond If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, the propounding party's remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories. (CCP section 2030.290.)
This motion is based upon Plaintiff’s declaration to establish that Plaintiff served Defendant Cox with the subject discovery and that no responses have been provided. Plaintiff’s declaration is deficient as it does not make the statements under penalty of perjury. However, Plaintiff’s declaration attached to her motion to compel defendant D&B Insulation to provide responses to 2