CNH INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL AMERICA LLC vs MCDONALD, JAMES ROY

Procedure section 415.50(c) provides that service by publication is complete as prescribed by Government Code section 6064. The record reflects that Plaintiff published the summons in the Patterson Irrigator on June 4, June 11, June 18, and June 25, 2026, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for service by publication. Once those requirements were met, service by publication became complete by operation of statute.

Moreover, the Court's April 30, 2026 order authorized two distinct methods of notice: (1) publication of the summons in the designated newspaper and (2) posting of the summons and complaint at the subject property. Defendant's arguments largely conflate the two. Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff's late posting rendered the posting aspect of the order defective, such a defect would not invalidate the separate service by publication, which the Court finds was properly authorized and properly completed.

Defendant's arguments that service by publication should never have been granted in the first instance have been rejected for the reasons discussed above. The Court finds both that Plaintiff established reasonable diligence under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50 and that the publication orders were validly issued.

The Court further finds an absence of prejudice. Defendant acknowledges that she ultimately discovered the posted documents and obtained actual notice of the action. She thereafter timely prepared and filed the present motion to quash before any default was entered and before expiration of the time to challenge jurisdiction. Defendant identifies no missed deadline, lost evidence, unavailable witness, impaired defense, or other prejudice resulting from the delayed posting or the absence of a follow-up declaration. To the contrary, the substance of the present motion demonstrates familiarity with the publication applications, supporting declarations, and service history.

By way of the completed publication, Defendant received constructive notice of the action. In addition, Defendant acknowledges receiving actual notice when she discovered the documents posted at the property. While Plaintiff may not have strictly complied with every procedural aspect of the Court's order, the Court finds substantial compliance, no resulting prejudice to Defendant, valid completion of service by publication, and actual notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

Accordingly, Defendant has not established grounds to quash service. Defendant shall file and serve a responsive pleading within 15 days after Plaintiff serves a notice of this ruling. Plaintiff shall serve the notice of ruling by mail and file the notice of ruling and a proof of service within five court days of the hearing on this matter. To the extent Defendant requests sanctions, disciplinary referrals, orders to show cause, or other affirmative relief in her supporting memorandum, those requests have not been properly presented to the Court and are also DENIED.

CV-25-002126 - CNH INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL AMERICA LLC vs MCDONALD, JAMES ROY - Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Contempt - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the June 30, 2025 default judgment and the proof of service showing service of that judgment pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Merits The unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that: 1. A valid default judgment was entered on June 30, 2025 containing a turnover provision specifically directed to James Roy McDonald a/k/a James R. McDonald a/k/a James McDonald a/k/a Jim McDonald requiring him to deliver possession of the New Holland Model U80C Loader, serial number JJGNU80CAM767600, or its proceeds, to Plaintiff.

2. McDonald received notice of that judgment through personal service.

3. Plaintiff has submitted evidence supporting a prima facie showing that McDonald had the ability to comply with the turnover provision.

4. Plaintiff has submitted evidence supporting a prima facie showing that McDonald failed to comply with the turnover provision despite notice of the Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court finds sufficient grounds to institute contempt proceedings and SETS for September 30, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 24 an Order to Show Cause directing James Roy McDonald a/k/a James R. McDonald a/k/a James McDonald a/k/a Jim McDonald to appear and show cause, if any exists, why he should not be adjudged in contempt for violation of the turnover provision contained in the June 30, 2025 judgment. The Court expresses no opinion regarding whether contempt ultimately will be established. The ruling is limited to whether Plaintiff has shown sufficient grounds for issuance of an OSC.

Plaintiff must file a proof of service at least five court days before the OSC date showing personal service of the signed order on the alleged contemnor no later than 16 court days before the hearing date. The Judgment Debtor may file and serve a written opposition to the Order to Show Cause no later than nine court days before the OSC date. If an opposition is filed, the Judgment Creditor may file and serve a reply brief no later than five court days before the OSC date. Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

CV-26-004164 - CHAUHAN, HARPINDER SINGH vs GILL, HARBANS SINGH - Plaintiff Harpinder Singh Chauhan's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction - DENIED. Plaintiff Harpinder Singh Chauhan's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

A preliminary injunction requires consideration of two interrelated factors: the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits and the comparative interim harm likely to result from granting or denying relief. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554; Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678.)

Plaintiff has not shown a sufficiently strong probability of prevailing on the causes of action alleged in the complaint. All of Plaintiff's claims depend on his contention that the July 2021 conveyance was temporary or that Defendants were obligated to restore his one-half ownership interest. The present record includes an October 2020 resolution reflecting a sale, a July 2021 Assignment Agreement providing for transfer of Plaintiff's interest for $500,000, a recorded Grant Deed transferring the Property to H & H Entities LLC, and an escrow settlement statement identifying the $400,000 closing disbursement as a buyout.

Defendants also submit evidence that Plaintiff stated shortly after closing that he had sold his interest. Plaintiff's evidence of continued onsite management, payment of a utility bill, identification on a business card, monthly payments, and third-party perceptions of ownership supports a competing inference but does not establish a strong probability of overcoming the written and recorded evidence.

Plaintiff also has not shown that the balance of interim harms warrants the broad restraint requested. Although the Property was refinanced in July 2026, the evidence does not identify a pending sale, transfer, lease, or additional encumbrance. Plaintiff's claimed interest is also the subject of pleaded remedies for quiet title, partition, accounting, and damages, and a lis pendens provides notice of the title dispute. The proposed injunction would impose a new restriction on H & H's recorded ownership and management of an operating commercial property rather than preserve an undisputed precontroversy condition.

Plaintiff's request for judicial notice and Defendants' request for judicial notice are GRANTED as to the existence, filing, recording, and legal effect of the identified court records and recorded instruments. The Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of reasonably disputable factual assertions or hearsay contained in those documents. The denial is without prejudice to a later application based on materially changed circumstances or competent evidence of an actual threatened transfer, sale, or further encumbrance.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***