In the Matter of the MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 18, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

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

CV-26-004817 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs SANDOVAL, KENNETH - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - DENIED without prejudice.

On July 14, 2026, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant in the principal sum of $4992.16 plus costs. There is no opposition on file.

The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, which requires that parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439 was the delivery of a written communication on June 22, 2026, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Robert S. Cox, P.P. 3-4.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff's memorandum argues that Defendant admitted all allegations in the complaint but instead, it appears Defendant's answer filed May 29, 2026, states the following: "Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny allegations 1-14 and therefore denies them." (Answer, 1.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

PR-21-001242 - IN THE MATTER OF MAXWELL HEINZLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST - Trustee's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court GRANTS the unopposed motion by Attorney Ronald W. Hillberg to be relieved as counsel for Trustee Roxanne Heinzle, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. Moving Counsel is to submit a new proposed order within five court days that reflects the current events set for October 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. In addition, Moving Counsel is to file and serve a notice of ruling within five court days on Western Surety Company pursuant to the Request for Special Notice that was filed on July 23, 2026.

PR-23-000289 - In the Matter of the MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - a) Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Petitioner, Angela Estacio and Her Counsel of Record, Rebecca H. Sem - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

a) Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions

The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition. The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence, filing, and contents of the court records identified in the request pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 453. The Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any factual matters asserted therein.

The motion for consolidation of trials of related actions is GRANTED. Preliminarily, the Court notes that creditors' claims typically belong in civil court and usually should be kept discrete from a probate case. However, in this particular case, the "creditor" is a beneficiary of the trust. And despite her first amended complaint having been pleaded as a civil damages action, the gravamen of her civil case remains a dispute over trust administration, trust asset allocation, trustee conduct, and beneficiary rights under the Machado Trusts.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the factual allegations concern matters traditionally within the probate court's trust jurisdiction and could have been litigated through trust petitions and objections in the pending probate proceeding. As such, this is the rare instance where it does make sense for the Court to try both the trust petitions and civil matters together.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. PR-23-000289 and Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-25-003485 involve common questions of law and fact within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a). Both matters arise from the administration of the Machado Family 2001 Survivor's Trust and Machado Family 2001 Credit Bypass Trust, involve substantially overlapping parties, witnesses, and documentary evidence, and present overlapping factual disputes.

The Court further finds that consolidation for purposes of trial will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and testimony, reduce litigation expense, and minimize the potential for inconsistent factual findings. The Court is not persuaded that the differences between the probate and civil proceedings warrant separate trials. Any concerns regarding differing remedies, procedural issues, or potential jury-trial rights can be addressed through appropriate case-management orders and trial sequencing.

Accordingly, the trials of Case No. PR-23-000289 and Case No. CV-25-003485 are consolidated for purposes of trial. The parties shall appear at the next case management conference or other date set by the court to discuss assignment of a trial department, sequencing of issues, and related scheduling matters.

b) Motion to Quash Subpoena

The Court finds that the subpoena, as drafted, is facially overbroad. The subpoena seeks "any and all records" relating to numerous individuals and trust entities and contains no temporal limitation. The absence of any time restriction potentially subjects approximately twenty-five years of records to production and renders the subpoena unreasonable in scope.

However, the Court also finds that petitioner has demonstrated that records maintained by Mid Valley Agricultural Services may have relevance to disputed issues concerning trust administration and the accounting, particularly in light of prior discovery responses indicating that some responsive vendor records may have been lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the Court declines to quash the subpoena in its entirety. Instead, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the subpoena is MODIFIED as follows:

1. Production shall be limited to records relating to trust property and trust expenditures from January 1, 2017, through the present.

2. Production shall be limited to records concerning agricultural purchases, agricultural inputs, invoices, statements, account records, payment records, and related business records associated with trust property.

Given that the Court agrees this matter could have been resolved with further meet and confer efforts, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Moving Party to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-24-000752 - LOPEZ, JUANITA vs COVANTA PROJECTS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement - DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement submitted by Class Counsel does not appear to be signed by a representative of the defendants or by defense counsel. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that a binding agreement was reached.

Moreover, the Court notes that Class Counsel's supporting declaration does not contain a discussion of the factors bearing on the valuation of the claim as compared to the settlement as required by the law. While that