Defendant U-Haul Co. of California's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 7, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Defendant's Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding - HEARING REQUIRED. Plaintiff is entitled to respond to the reply brief's assertions. Given the nature of the opposition, the additional information in the reply brief appears relevant. The Court will grant Plaintiff's request for additional briefing and intends to reset the hearing.
CV-26-002823 - COLE, KAYLA RENEE vs UHAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS INC - Defendant U-Haul Co. of California's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - HEARING REQUIRED. Both parties reference a First Amended Complaint which was rejected by the clerk's office and the Court does not have access to. The Court views an infinite time arbitration agreement for all possible events as overbroad. The Court needs the actual allegations, which it assumes were not in Santa Clara County.
CV-26-002989 - DEL RIO, JOSE LUIS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Defendant General Motors LLCs Motion for Compliance and Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. Plaintiff is likely required to provide a declaration which pertains to the registration. I am surprised that this matter remains on calendar. Under "Meet and Confer Efforts," Defendant offers no meet and confer efforts.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Ruben Vasquez in The Sum of $1560.00 - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and unopposed.
On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to requests for production and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1560.00. "If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300.) "[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300(c).)
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?”
On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff served 11 requests for production of documents on Defendant, to which Defendant did not respond. On July 28, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for protective order to prohibit Plaintiff from propounding further discovery and to relieve Defendant from responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests, but there is no opposition on file. Defendant states that he is in the process of securing an attorney.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve responses within 30 days. The Court declines to issue sanctions in this circumstance. The request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-005585 - DIAS, RYAN vs DIAS, MARCUS - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Matthew Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions against Matthew Dias - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further