BEOUGHER, DENNIS vs CITY OF PATTERSON

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 20, 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:

2017857 - WAHR FINANCIAL GROUP VS STORMENT, JAIME - Defendant's Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(D) - DENIED.

On July 24, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to vacate default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Defendant argues the judgment is void because Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

"The court . . . may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473(d).) "[A] section 473(d) motion to vacate a judgment that is void for lack of proper service is not subject to the judicially imposed two-year limitation." (California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 225.)

Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of service on January 7, 2016. The address for service was confirmed by at least the post office and a grant deed from the county recorder. The proof of service indicates that the summons and complaint were served by substituted service on a co-resident of Defendant at Defendant's dwelling or usual place of abode on January 3, 2016, and also that the documents were subsequently mailed to the same address. Thus, the service was in compliance with section 415.20 and there exists a presumption that the service was proper.

Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service was proper. Defendant states that they did not receive the served documents. Plaintiff avers that the parties had two phone conversations shortly following service, in which the debt amount and potential settlement were discussed. Therefore, it appears Defendant was properly served and/or had constructive notice of the case.

CV-26-005707 - BEOUGHER, DENNIS vs CITY OF PATTERSON - Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief - CONTINUED to November 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation filed on August 4, 2026, and the Court's Order signed on the same day, the hearing is CONTINUED to November 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Petitioner's opening brief, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before August 27, 2026. Respondent's opposition brief, limited to 20 pages, shall be filed on or before September 24, 2026. Petitioner's reply brief, limited to 15 pages shall be filed on or before October 8, 2026.

CV-26-006244 - BADAL, ZHONIT vs DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate on June 22, 2026, seeking the issuance of a peremptory writ commanding Respondent Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") to set aside and vacate two decisions dated April 30, 2026 and May 6, 2026. Petitioner also filed a proof of service indicating that Respondent DMV was served via personal service on June 29, 2026.

On June 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of the petition. On August 10, 2026, Petitioner filed an unauthorized supplemental memorandum in support of the petition. On August 13, 2026, Petitioner lodged the administrative record. On the same day, Petitioner filed a "response" to the administrative record.

It is not clear whether Petitioner seeks to augment the administrative record. To the extent Petitioner seeks to augment