AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 21, 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-24-010714 - CERVANTEZ, YENI ALEJANDRA CORTEZ vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Defendant City of Turlock's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Discovery Responses and Request for Issue and Evidence Sanctions in the Alternative - CONTINUED to September 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Defendant seeks to withdraw the motion to compel because the discovery dispute has been resolved. The matter is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Moving party to submit a notice of withdrawal at least five court days before the hearing.

CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Defendant's Motion for Protective Order - DENIED.

On July 28, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for protective order seeking to prohibit Plaintiff from propounding further discovery and to relieve Defendant from responding to Plaintiff's requests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.020, 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080. On July 30, 2026, Defendant filed a declaration related to his motion for protective order. On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply was filed.

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.020(a).)

"The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.020(b).)

The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.020, 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080, which requires "a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040.)

Here, Defendant states in his declaration that he did not attempt to meet and confer before filing the motion for protective order. Defendant also states that he is in the process of seeking legal counsel. Accordingly, the motion for protective order is DENIED. The Court declines to issue sanctions against Defendant in this instance

CV-26-001469 - AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT - Defendants' CCTMO LLC and T-Mobile West Tower LLC's Demurrer to First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Aarza Group Inc. - CONTINUED to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The demurrer is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference." Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the delivery of a written email communication sent on July 14, 2026, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Sandra Vucinic, P.P. 4-5.)

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.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the demurrer to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 430.41(a) by no later than six court days before the hearing. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than five court days before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

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

CV-23-007325 - MARTINEZ, JORDAN P vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto and its Counsel of Record - GRANTED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that while submitted as a single motion, the papers herein seek orders concerning 2 separate discovery devices: Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Such combined motions are disfavored. In this instance, the Court finds that the issues presented with regard to the 2 sets of discovery requests are sufficiently interrelated as to justify hearing concurrently in the interest of judicial economy, and for that reason the Court will consider those issues together herein.

With regard to the issues presented herein, the Court finds that the subject responses do not comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.220 and 2030.220, and Plaintiff is entitled to further verified responses. Such responses shall be provided within 14 days.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.290(c), 2030.300(c), 2023.010, 2023.030 et seq.) Therefore, sanctions in the amount of $1,350 are awarded against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.

CV-24-005270 - DAVIS, MICKEY ERNEST vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED.

Due to the proximity of the trial and dispositive motion dates, the Court wishes to inquire of counsel in camera as to the factual details supporting the instant request.

CV-25-011109 - DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - a) Defendant Sutter Gould Medical Foundation's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend; SUSTAINED, in part, without leave to amend; OVERRULED, in part; b) Defendant Sutter Gould Medical Foundation's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - DENIED, as MOOT.

a) With regard to Defendant's demurrer to the entire pleading based on uncertainty and misjoinder, the Court notes that the law recognizes the proper joinder of multiple claims against an institutional defendant where the alleged institutional conduct is common to all plaintiffs and common questions regarding that conduct are present. . (See, e.g. Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826, 832-836; Smith v. Superior Court (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 607, 621-622.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations against the moving defendant are properly pursued jointly herein and are sufficiently certain at this stage to inform the defendant of the allegations against it requiring response. Therefore, Defendant's demurrer to the entire pleading on these grounds is OVERRULED.

With regard to the Second Cause of Action (Bane Act violation), the Court finds that the pleading fails to sufficiently allege the stated claim. Specifically, the pleading fails to allege the moving defendant's use of threats, intimidation, or coercion to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights. Therefore, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 51.9, the Court finds that the pleading is deficient with regard to the factual basis underlying Jane Doe #5's claim pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 51.9. Specifically, the pleading fails to provide sufficient information from which to ascertain (1) the applicable statutory elements relative to her claim, and (2) whether such elements are sufficiently alleged. Therefore, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED with leave to amend in this regard.