THOMAS, ATORINA vs STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC

factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden. Preliminarily, the Court notes that the memorandum in opposition to the motion has arguments which do not appear to pertain to this case.

In his separate statement, Plaintiff disputed UMF Nos. 8, 11, 15, and 16. (UMF No. 12 is also disputed, but that raises a minor issue that is not critical to deciding this motion.) All of Plaintiff's disputed facts rely on the same set of evidence: Exhibit A, p. 37:20-23, and pp. 46:21-47:3. The cited portions state as follows: 20 Q.· · Ms. McCoy, how long was the green Mustang 21· traveling behind you on Oakdale-Waterford Highway on 22· the date of the incident? 23· · · ·A.· · For about two or -- two minutes. *** 21 Q.· · And when law enforcement arrived, did you 22· give them a statement? 23· · · ·A.· · Yes. 24· · · ·Q.· · And what was that statement? 25· · · ·A.· · I said he was driving behind me, and he 1· was merging in and out of traffic -- or in and out 2· from around me trying to see how to pass.· And the 3· third time he passed, he hit the lady and my car.

Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to UMF Nos. 8, 11, 15, and 16 are as follows: - For both UMF Nos. 8 and 15, Plaintiff contends, "Plaintiff attempted to pass the Defendant driver several times, but her actions prevented Plaintiff from passing safely;" - For UMF No. 11, Plaintiff states, "Defendant was driving slower than the actual speed limit, and was impeding traffic, and the Plaintiff from passing safely;" and - For UMF No. 16, Plaintiff asserts, "Defendant could have pulled over to the side to allow traffic to proceed. Nothing prevented the Defendant from safely pulling over to allow Plaintiff safely pass."

The cited evidence does not adequately support any of these assertions. Specifically, the deposition passages do not show that it was Defendant's actions that prevented Plaintiff from passing safely; that Defendant McCoy was driving slower than the speed limit; that Defendant McCoy was impeding traffic; or that there was nothing preventing Defendant McCoy from safely pulling over to allow Plaintiff to pass.

Because the Plaintiff's statement of disputed facts lacks material evidentiary support, the Court deems Moving Defendants' statement of facts undisputed. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff included his own deposition as evidence but never cited to it. If the inclusion was an implicit invitation for the Court to review the deposition testimony for triable issues, the Court declines that invitation.

The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion. In addition, Moving Defendants are instructed to submit a proposed judgment within five court days. All future dates are vacated and a Case Status Review is set for October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.

21. That date will be vacated upon signing of the judgment.

CV-24-006618 - CATT, TODD MICHAEL vs RENTERIA, MARCOS, JR - Defendant's Motion to Strike Amendments to Complaint Based on Lack of Good Faith, Abuse of Process, and Collusive Misrepresentation - CONTINUED to September 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. to be heard with the Motion for Protective Order.

CV-26-006055 - THOMAS, ATORINA vs STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC - Petitioner's Verified Petition to Compel Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Arbitration and to Appoint a Single Neutral Arbitrator - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has questions regarding the proposed method of arbitrator selection.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings for Department 22***

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 - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and for Issue and Terminating Sanctions, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,860.00 - GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part. The Court finds that Defendant's conduct in failing to timely comply with the Court's 2-26-26 order constitutes misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2023.010(d), (g).) However, under the circumstances the Court notes the defense's attempt to provide compliant further verified responses in advance of the instant hearing and declines to award issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions at this time.

As Plaintiffs' reply brief demonstrates, Defendant's further verified responses appear incomplete, as the two subject requests and responses are identical as reflected therein and reference the same attached set of documents. Therefore, Defendant is again ordered to provide complete verified further responses, without objection, and to produce all responsive documents within 10 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.320(c).) The Court further finds that Defendant's conduct is attributable to its counsel and necessitated the instant motion, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of monetary sanctions herein. (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec.Sec. 2031.320(c), 2023.010, 2023.030.) Therefore, $1,560 in additional monetary sanctions is awarded against defense counsel, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiffs shall submit a revised form of order reflecting the Court's ruling herein.

CV-26-001860 - SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC - a) Defendant Hartley Patterson, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Action - OVERRULED; b) Defendant 50 Fathom Curve, LLC's Demurrer to Amended Complaint - OVERRULED; c) Defendant Bruce Harrington's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend; d) Defendant Bruce Harrington's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint - DENIED, as MOOT.

a) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient factual support for the stated claims, including the alter ego allegations which form a substantial basis for such claims. The Court further notes that several of Defendant's arguments appear to turn on the evaluation of extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate on demurrer.

b) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient factual support for the stated claims, including the alter ego allegations which form a substantial basis for such claims. The Court further notes that several of Defendant's arguments appear to turn on the evaluation of extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate on demurrer.

c) The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient factual support for the stated claims against Defendant Harrington. Specifically, the pleading fails to allege facts which, if established, would entitle Plaintiff to seek recovery from Defendant Harrington as the alter ego of the subject corporate entities.

d) The motion is MOOT, in view of the Court's ruling on the related demurrer.

CV-26-004467 - GOMES, KEVIN vs BOISE CASCADE COMPANY - Defendant's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Timothy S. Anderson on Behalf of Defendants Boise Cascade Company and Lisa Carriguiry - GRANTED, and unopposed. The application complies with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40. The Court will sign the proposed order.

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