SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC

heard with the related probate discovery motion on calendar that day. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-22-001828 - LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant's Motion to Compel Lupe Longoria to Submit an IME - DROPPED. Defendant has failed to file or serve the moving papers.

CV-25-003899 - ISAAK, LIAM vs GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Set One Special Interrogatories - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Plaintiff Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Set One Requests for Production of Documents - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court finds the parties' meet-and-confer efforts to be insufficient under the circumstances presented herein. Specifically, the Court notes the absence of any further meet-and-confer efforts after Defendant's service of further responses to the subject discovery. Further, the Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve or substantially narrow the subject issues if genuine efforts to meet and confer are undertaken in good faith.

Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by October 9, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The Court believes the issues herein are amenable to informal resolution. Toward that end, the parties are reminded that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) Therefore, the Court expects the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another and to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

CV-25-008202 - RUIZ, VICTORIA REYNA MENDOZA vs MERLIN PLASTICS CALIFORNIA INC - Defendants and Cross-Complainants Merlin Plastics California, Inc. and Peninsula Plastics Recycling, Inc.'s Motion for Good Faith Settlement - DENIED, without prejudice. The Court notes that Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 877.6(b) contemplates the submission of evidentiary support for the information asserted in the instant motion, and moving defendants have failed to submit a supporting declaration or other evidence herein.

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

CV-23-004243 - SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24. The Court has reviewed the declaration of Nicole Bench, Case Manager for ILYM Group, Inc., concerning administration of the class action settlement. The declaration establishes that settlement funds have been distributed pursuant to the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment entered February 3, 2026. The declaration further establishes that settlement checks were issued on March 25, 2026, and that settlement class members have until September 21, 2026, to negotiate those checks.

As of August 11, 2026, 152 checks totaling $61,637.09 remained outstanding. Under the Final Approval Order and Judgment, any funds represented by uncashed checks are to be distributed to the Court-approved cy pres recipient, Jessica's House. The Court finds that a final accounting cannot yet be completed because the check-cashing period has not expired. The amount of residual funds, if any, remains unknown, and no cy pres distribution has yet occurred. Good cause therefore exists to continue the compliance hearing.

Accordingly: 1. The final accounting hearing is CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

2. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., shall file and serve a supplemental declaration: (a) confirming expiration of the settlement check-cashing period; (b) identifying the total number and dollar amount of checks negotiated and uncashed; (c) confirming the amount of residual funds, if any, distributed to Jessica's House pursuant to the settlement and Final Approval Judgment; and (d) confirming completion of all settlement administration and distributions.

3. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, Class Counsel shall file and serve an amended proposed judgment and proposed final accounting order that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.5 and includes all information required by Government Code section 68520, including but not limited to: (a) the identity of the cy pres recipient; (b) the amount of residual funds distributed to the cy pres recipient(s); (c) the total amount distributed to class members; (d) the total amount of attorney fees and costs awarded; and (e) any other information required for transmission to the Judicial Council pursuant to Government Code section 68520. The Court retains jurisdiction to supervise implementation of the settlement and distribution of residual settlement funds as provided in the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Person Most Knowledgeable - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect Property - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect Vehicle - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

a-c) The Court has reviewed the moving papers and concludes that the disputes appear capable of informal resolution through further meaningful meet-and-confer efforts. The Court finds the requested discovery is generally directed toward issues central to the action and that substantial overlap exists among the requested inspections, physical evidence examinations, PMQ depositions, and related document production. The Court further finds that the record reflects ongoing communications between counsel concerning scheduling and coordination of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES all three motions to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am Department 24. No later than 10 days from the date of this hearing, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in good faith, either in person or by videoconference, concerning: 1. Dates for inspection of the subject property; 2. Dates for inspection of the subject vehicle and end-sign assembly; 3. Dates for PMQ depositions; 4. A schedule for PMQ-related document production; and 5. Any remaining issues that may be resolved without further court intervention.

No later than five court days before the continued hearing, counsel shall file a joint status report advising the Court whether the motions have been resolved in whole or in part and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication. The Court reserves ruling on the merits of the motions and all requests for sanctions.

CV-25-009148 - PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Henry Ernest Perez and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,430.00 - CONTINUED to September 9, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24. The Court has reviewed the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supporting declarations. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant's entitlement to take Plaintiff's deposition and expressly acknowledges that Defendant is entitled to that discovery.

The parties' dispute instead appears to center on deposition scheduling, the sufficiency of the parties' meet-and-confer efforts, and whether sanctions are warranted. Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to provide any available dates despite multiple requests over several months. Plaintiff contends he timely objected to two unilaterally noticed depositions, invited further meet-and-confer efforts, and that defense counsel never attempted a telephonic conference before seeking Court intervention.