GRAYS, WILLIE, Jr vs JAMES, PATRICIA

cross-complaint.

Patelco then filed the instant motion on August 4, 2026. No trial date has been set and the parties have not yet exchanged written discovery. Plaintiff's arguments in opposition fail to demonstrate that Patelco acted in bad faith.

Pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendant Patelco is granted leave to file the Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the August 4, 2026 Declaration of Darrell V. Nguyen, and shall file and serve the Cross-Complaint within ten days of notice of entry of the order.

The proposed order submitted in connection with the motion references Exhibit A instead of Exhibit C and also references appearances by specific attorneys and arguments of counsel, which may not be accurate. Moving party to submit revised proposed order within five court days consistent with this ruling.

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Initial Responses and Production to Requests for Production, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motions on calendar that day.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-24-006834 - GRAYS, WILLIE, Jr vs JAMES, PATRICIA - Plaintiff Willie Grays Jr.'s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint - DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's reply brief exceeds the page limit prescribed by Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1113(d). Therefore, the Court has not considered the material contained in the excess pages.

While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, the circumstances herein portray a situation where Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.)

Given the procedural history of both this action and the underlying medical malpractice action, and specifically Plaintiff's repeated judicial admissions with regard to the date of discovery of his cause of action in the medical case, the Court finds Plaintiff's explanation for the inconsistent allegations in his proposed amended pleading insufficient and can only conclude that the proposed amendment herein is offered for the sole purpose of avoiding an adverse outcome.

Therefore, granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the proposed amended pleading is certain to be disregarded via application of the sham pleading doctrine. (See, e.g. Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 196; American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western Transport (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 878-880.)

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for relief from the binding effect of his multiple judicial admissions herein based on the alleged failures of his attorneys. (See, e.g., Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175.)

CV-22-005423 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs AYALA, CRISTIAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Forfeiture Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11488.5(b) - DENIED without prejudice.

The Court notes that Petitioner failed to serve the instant motion on Mr. Ayala's counsel, and no substitution of attorneys has been submitted. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that proper notice of the instant proceeding was provided.

CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial [CRC 3.1332] - HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000355 - CHAVEZ FAMILY TRUST vs WRIGHT, SHAUN - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.

The parties and/or their counsel are directed to appear and be prepared to address the issue of the discrepancy in the property address in the 3-Day Notice and the potential actions available to the Court and the parties as a result, given that possession has already been returned to Plaintiff and Defendant concedes that he no longer uses the property for business purposes as of October 2025.