ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN

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