WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs SCOTT, MOSES

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 12, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-004719 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs SCOTT, MOSES - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under C.C.P. 664.6 & Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court requires clarification on the basis of the discrepancy in the sums alleged to have been paid by Defendant per Plaintiff's prior motion to vacate default filed on March 16, 2026, as compared to Plaintiff's present motion. The Court required this explanation as a condition of refiling the motion, and the reason for counsel's choice to decline to offer such explanation is unclear. The Court is inclined to deny the motion.

CV-25-000545 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs ROJAS, NIOMI - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment; in the alternative, Motion for New Trial - DENIED. Plaintiff failed to present evidence at trial and the cases cited by Plaintiff do not stand for the proposition that failing to authenticate or provide authorized evidence permits either a new trial or a notice to vacate the judgment. Without such authority for reversal based on trial errors, the Court declines to grant the motion. Ordinary prudence would require that a section 98 package provide adequate and legal means of service.

CV-25-008025 - BABYLON BUILDERS INC vs HOMEADVISOR INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - DENIED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions - DENIED. c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories General, Set One (Form Interrogatory No.15.1) - DENIED.

a-c) The motions to compel further responses are DENIED. No sanctions are issued. Plaintiff's motions to compel are untimely. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c) provides, "Unless notice of [a motion to compel further responses] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand." Section 2030.300(c) similarly requires notice of a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories to be given within 45 days.

California courts consistently hold that this 45?day deadline is mandatory and quasi’jurisdictional. Failure to comply results in waiver of the right to compel further responses, and the court lacks discretion to excuse noncompliance absent a written stipulation extending the deadline. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [noting that the 45-day time limit is jurisdictional "in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them"]; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 [describing discovery motion deadlines as operating in a manner that is jurisdictional in effect]; Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902 [stating that a failure to move to compel further responses "within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response; indeed, similar provisions have been held at least quasi-jurisdictional."].)

Here, Defendant served its verified responses on April 21, 2026. The statutory deadline for a motion to compel was therefore June 9, 2026. Plaintiff did not file the motions until over 30 days beyond the 45?day deadline. The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories was filed on July 8, 2026. The other two motions to compel were filed on July 13, 2026. Thus, the motions are untimely

Plaintiff argues that Defendant, on May 28, 2026 via email, offered to extend the deadline to July 9, 2026. But that offer was never agreed to because, on or about May 28, 2026, Plaintiff served the motions to compel and/or