VIERRA, LANA vs VALVERDE, CONNIE

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 28, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-24-002542 - VIERRA, LANA vs VALVERDE, CONNIE - Defendant Connie Valverde's Motion Requesting Reconsideration of Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination [C.C.P. 877.6 (A)(2)] - CONTINUED to September 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21. The motion is well-taken. Although Plaintiff dismissed Valverde from the complaint before Valverde filed the application for determination of good faith settlement, Valverde remains a cross-defendant in the action and contends that a good-faith determination remains necessary in light of the pending cross-claims.

However, the Court's file does not reflect that the motion for reconsideration was served on all remaining parties, or, alternatively, does not contain a proof of service establishing such service. Due process requires that all affected parties receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Court rules on the motion. If proof of proper service is filed, the Court will consider the motion on the continued hearing date.

CV-24-004750 - GOODY, JAMES JOSEPH vs FARINELLI, ALBERT - Defendants Yolanda Arnette Mccoy and Eulene Ramsey's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED. This matter was originally set for hearing on August 21, 2026. Trial is scheduled to begin on September 22, 2026. The Court has found good cause to hear this matter within 30 days of trial, as the Court had a scheduling conflict and needed to move the hearing on its own motion from August 21 to August 28, 2026.

Governing Law

A "party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . ." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) "A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question." (Id. at p. 851.) A defendant meets their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party shows that "one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that "a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." (Ibid.) "Because of the drastic nature of the summary judgment procedure and the importance of safeguarding the adverse party's right to a trial, the moving party must make a strong showing. His affidavits are strictly construed and the opposing party's are liberally construed." (Garcia v.

World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1038.) All doubts as to whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment or adjudication. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.) Thus, evidence that is equivocal or from which conflicting inferences may be drawn is insufficient to meet the movant's burden. (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 297.)

Discussion

The Court finds that Defendants Yolanda Arnette McCoy and Eulene Ramsey ("Moving Defendants") have carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment pursuant to the application of the "sudden emergency" or "imminent peril" doctrine. Specifically, the evidence submitted with the motion supports the conclusion that Defendant McCoy acted with reasonable care and was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency she did not cause. (See UMF Nos. 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14; Shiver v. Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395, 397.) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material