DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PR-24-001121·stanislaus·Civil·Probate
Hearing todayDENIED

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARIA A GONZALEZ 2016 IRREVOCABLE TRUST

Petitioner's Amended Motion to Set Aside / Vacate Dismissal

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
22
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherMARIA A GONZALEZ 2016 IRREVOCABLE TRUST

Ruling

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 19, 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-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed. On July 14, 2026, Attorney Sam Dehbozorgi filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Protech Phone Repair Inc. There is no opposition on file. The unopposed motion is GRANTED, effective on the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on the client. The Court intends to sign the proposed order, submitted on August 6, 2026, in connection with the instant motion.

CV-26-002829 - GARCIA, STEVE vs KIA AMERICA INC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed. On July 28, 2026, Attorney Christian Corona filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Steve Garcia. There is no opposition on file. The unopposed motion is GRANTED, effective on the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on the client. Attorney Corona is ordered to file a new proposed order within five court days that checks box 5(a).

PR-24-001121 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MARIA A GONZALEZ 2016 IRREVOCABLE TRUST - Petitioner's Amended Motion to Set Aside / Vacate Dismissal - DENIED. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

The Court construes the amended motion as seeking relief under either Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 or Code of Civil Procedure section 473. To the extent the motion is construed as a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, Petitioner has not demonstrated any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. The motion is based principally upon allegations concerning the trust property sale, the amount reflected in the waiver, the trust accounting, and the validity of the waiver.

Those same contentions were asserted in Petitioner's July 16, 2026 declaration and supporting exhibits filed and served prior to the July 21, 2026 hearing. Petitioner further alleges that he learned the relevant information concerning the alleged sale-price discrepancy in October 2024, well before the July 2026 hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the information relied upon in the present motion constitutes new or different facts within the meaning of section 1008.

To the extent the motion seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the dismissal resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The motion does not identify any procedural circumstance warranting relief under section 473 and instead challenges the merits of the Court's prior determination concerning the effect of the waiver and Petitioner's allegations regarding trust administration.

The Court further notes that the amended motion repeatedly states that Petitioner's declaration was dismissed without prejudice. The July 21, 2026 minute order reflects that the Court found there were no issues for trial and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the ultimate merits of Petitioner's allegations concerning trust administration, accounting issues, trustee conduct, or the enforceability of the waiver. The Court finds only that Petitioner has not established a basis for relief from the July 21, 2026 dismissal order under either Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 or Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

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

CV-23-005739 - TALAVERA, ROSENDO CONTRERAS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Defendant General Motors LLC's Motion to Tax Counsel's Memorandum of Costs - DENIED. Preliminarily, the Court notes that Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d) allows for a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs and expenses beyond those enumerated in Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5. (See, e.g. Jensen v. BMW of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-38.) In any case, the Court notes that the majority of the items challenged herein are expressly recoverable under Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 1033.5. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the challenged costs are unrecoverable, excessive and/or unreasonably incurred under either Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d) or Code Civ. Proc. Sec.1033.5. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4 th 111, 131; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4 th 807, 816-817; Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) The clerk shall enter the cost award on the judgment in this matter. (Cal.

Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700(b)(4).)

CV-24-007336 - CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS LLC vs HERNANDEZ, HILDA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-009269 - EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant County of Stanislaus's Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, as well as the lack of substantive argument in opposition thereto, the Court sustains the Demurrer in its entirety. Specifically, the Court notes that only the Third Cause of Action contains any factual allegations against the County, and the claims suggested therein appear to be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation on the face of the pleading.

Under the circumstances, it is Plaintiff's burden to plead facts showing a ground for suspension, delayed accrual, or application of another theory for avoidance of the statute. (See, e.g., County of Alameda v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1283, 1286-1287.) Plaintiff shall submit his Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

CV-26-000602 - NORFORD, LEON vs MOUNTAIN VIEW SECURITIES INC - Defendant Mountain View Securities Inc.'s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Stay the Non-Individual Private Attorney's General Act Claim Pending Completion of Arbitration - DENIED. Defendant has not met its burden to prove Plaintiff assented to the subject arbitration agreement. Defendant's submission of an unsigned agreement and an ADP acknowledgment record, even while supported by evidence purportedly authenticating attribution of the electronic acknowledgment to Plaintiff, is insufficient to establish Plaintiff's assent to the contract terms under California law. Because Defendant has not shown an agreement to arbitrate, the Court does not reach Plaintiff's alternative enforcement defenses.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-24-002004 - CONSTRUCTION LOAN SERVICES II LLC vs HOGGAN, KENT A - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff as Against Kent A. Hoggan - GRANTED. The court finds that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating prima facie that it is entitled to summary judgment on its claims, and that Defendant has failed to adduce any admissible evidence to establish the existence of any triable issue of material fact herein. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c; Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield, (2001)25 Cal.4th 826; 640 Octavia, LLC v. Pieper, (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1181).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share