DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD

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.

With regard to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Gross Negligence, the Court finds that California law does not support an independent cause of action for gross negligence, which differs from ordinary negligence in degree, not in kind. (Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 44, 55-56.) As the pleading already asserts a cause of action for negligence, this claim is duplicative and unnecessary; therefore, the demurrer to the Eleventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

With regard to the Sixteenth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting, the Court finds that the factual allegations do not state facts supporting a conscious decision by the moving defendant to participate in and render substantial assistance to Dr. Altman's alleged tortious activity. (See, e.g., George v. eBay, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 620, 641-642; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 879.) Therefore, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

The Court finds that the remaining challenged claims are sufficiently alleged at this stage of the case. Therefore, the demurrer to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Causes of Action is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs shall submit their Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

b) The motion to strike is MOOT in view of the Court's ruling on the demurrer, above.

CV-26-002449 - BLACK, DAWN vs ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF PHOENIX LLC - Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of San Francisco, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED. The Court finds that the pleading sufficiently states the subject causes of action at this stage of the litigation. Moreover, it appears that the demurrer rests, in part, on the existence of extrinsic facts, which are inappropriate for consideration on demurrer.

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

CV-21-001167 - ELIZONDO, AARON vs KCB VENTURES INC - Defendant, Tejinderpaul Chahal's, Motion for an Order That Requests for Admissions, Set One, to Defendant, ADCOMM, Inc., Be Deemed Admitted - DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the court records identified in the request, including Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Chahal's prior Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, the Court's order granting that motion, and the Notice of Ruling. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Merits Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admission, Set One, to Defendant Adcomm, Inc. Admitted is DENIED. The motion is procedurally defective. Chahal's own moving papers establish that Adcomm served responses to the requests for admission on October 29, 2025. Although those responses allegedly consisted solely of objections and no substantive responses, Chahal acknowledged the existence of those responses by filing a motion to compel further responses, which the Court granted on April 7, 2026.

Because responses were served, this is not a circumstance in which the responding party wholly failed to respond to requests for admission. Nonetheless, the present motion improperly proceeds as if no responses were ever received. As the premise for the motion is procedurally infirm, the Court declines to deem Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 51 admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. The denial is without prejudice to any relief that may otherwise be available under the Discovery Act based upon an alleged failure to comply with the Court's prior order compelling further responses.

The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of any such request.

CV-24-000417 - CEJA, REGINA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION - Final Fairness Hearing -