BABYLON BUILDERS INC vs HOMEADVISOR INC

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 represented that the motions had been filed with the Court. In its reply brief, Plaintiff states the May 28, 2026 "draft motions" were never filed with the Court and instead were served to facilitate efforts to resolve the disputes without judicial intervention. But on May 29, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that at least one "motion has already been filed."

On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that it filed the motions a second time "due to a clerk request to correct filing selection" and stating that it would "withdraw the motions for now." Plaintiff stated that the motions had been filed and never accepted the offer to extend the deadlines. There is no written agreement extending the deadline. Plaintiff waived any right to compel further responses, and sanctions predicated on an untimely motion are improper. Defendant argues that sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff for filing untimely motions.

While the Court acknowledges other procedural irregularities in the motion, there is good cause not to issue sanctions under these circumstances.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-003194 - GODINEZ, JOSE vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS - Compliance Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure 384 - DROPPED. On June 30, 2026, the Settlement Administrator submitted a declaration stating that there were 123 uncashed checks totaling $19,329.52 that remain uncashed after the deadline. The declaration further states that once directed by the Court or counsel, the settlement administrator will remit all uncashed funds to the State Controller's Office - Unclaimed Property Fund pursuant to the terms of the settlement.

On August 4, 2026, Class Counsel submitted a proposed amended judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds be distributed to the State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund. The Court signed the amended judgment on August 4, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 384.5, the court directs the clerk to transmit a copy of the amended judgment along with the original judgment to the Judicial Council for completion of the report required by Section 68520 of the Government Code. As it appears that all payment obligations regarding the settlement agreement have now been fulfilled, the compliance hearing is DROPPED.

CV-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - GRANTED, and unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Governing Law

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) Because summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the moving party's evidence is strictly construed and the opposing party's evidence is liberally construed, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.) However, when a motion is unopposed, and the movant's evidence establishes each required element, summary judgment is appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(c).)

In addition to moving for summary judgment, "[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication proceeds in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(f)(2).)

Merits of Summary Judgment