ALMANZA, KRISTOPHER vs MODESTO ON ICE INC

discussion and contended the dogs were strays. The animal control officer issued two citations to Mr. Renteria, and the third dog, which was injured, was recovered from the Renterias' property. The injured dog appeared to be related to the other two dogs that were killed.

On these facts, Plaintiff filed suit against the Renterias. (See Pl.'s Opp., at pp. 3-4.)

It was only at Plaintiff's deposition on April 13, 2026, that Plaintiff became aware of a possible dog breeding farm across the street from the Renterias. Thereafter, Plaintiff acted promptly to amend his complaint. (See Pl.'s Opp., at pp. 5-6.)

Plaintiff had sent an evidence preservation letter to "Windy Hill Farm" on January 23, 2024, and a follow-up letter to "Gerald Mansager" and "Windy Hill Doodles" on February 15, 2024, and asserted there may be some liability for Windy Hill Doodles if it did not preserve documents. Whether this was a pro forma effort at preservation or based on some actual theory of liability is unclear.

Plaintiff makes a sufficient facial showing to permit amendment. The Court makes no findings at this time as to a potential demurrer or motion for summary judgment. The same logic applies to the Renteria's cross-complaint. The question here is not whether the amendment will survive further scrutiny, but whether it was void ab initio. Based on Plaintiff's claims, it was not.

CV-25-001199 - ALMANZA, KRISTOPHER vs MODESTO ON ICE INC - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - Denied.

Legal Standards

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.)

Request for Judicial Notice

In support of its motion, Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint and the answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The request for judicial notice is unnecessary as the Court probably need not make such a ruling to consider papers filed in the instant case. (See Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile (1902) 186 U.S. 212, 217.)

Discussion

A motion for summary judgment is framed by the pleadings. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381; Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.)

Here, there are two events that give rise to the pleading: (1) the state of the ice; and (2) Defendant's employees' alleged failure to timely offer aid (see SAC P.P. 18, 22, 44).

The only fact that Moving Defendant lists for the latter issue is SUF No. 18: "Plaintiff claims in discovery and the operative complaint after he fell employees of Modesto On Ice, Inc. refused to call him an ambulance but at his deposition he testified and clarified they did not refuse to call him an ambulance."

Plaintiff disputes this characterization. (See Resp. Sep. Stmt., SUF No. 18; AMF Nos. 6-8.) His issue was with the timing of the offer to render aid.

Specifically, in his deposition, Plaintiff stated that immediately after his injury, he had to partially crawl off the ice; no employees helped him. Then two employees came up to him. He asked for paramedics or a wheelchair. They stated that they did not have either available and instead questioned him regarding the accident. Only after gaining material information from him regarding the accident did they offer to call 911, by which time, Plaintiff had determined that it would be faster to have his mother (who was present at the rink) drive him to the hospital.

Because the separate statement does not adequately refute the issue of failing to provide timely aid, Moving Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden of proof.

Even assuming that the foregoing issue has been adequately addressed, there are still triable issues of material fact. (See, e.g., SUF Nos. 11 [Defendant claims no one else fell that day, but Plaintiff states he saw people fall]; SUF No. 13 [dispute over compliance with industry standards].)

Defendant stated on reply that it found some of Plaintiff's evidence objectionable. The Court was unable to locate a set of objections filed at or around the time that the reply was filed. In any case, with regard to the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, it appears that most of the objections go to weight, not admissibility.

The Court does not consider the presence or absence of insurance for any purpose.

CV-26-006975 - IN RE: PARKSIDE VILLAS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION - Petitioner's Petition to Reduce Required Voting Percentage for Amendment to CC&Rs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 4275 and Corporations Code Section 7515 - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions relating to service of the petition.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-25-005895 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs FRISBIE, JEFFREY - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed.

On August 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in requests for admission be deemed admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280. There is no opposition on file.

"If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.)

"The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)

On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff propounded 11 requests for admission on Defendant. Defendant did not respond to the requests. Objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. There is no proof of service of the proposed order on file. Moving party to serve and re-submit the proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

CV-25-010560 - KAUR, SANDEEP vs BAKHSHIYAR, KAMBIZ H - Defendant's Patelco Credit Union's Motion for Leave To file Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur- GRANTED.

On August 4, 2026, Defendant Patelco Credit Union ("Patelco") submitted a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur. Plaintiff timely opposed and Patelco timely replied.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, a court must grant leave to file a compulsory cross’complaint if the moving party "acted in good faith."

"A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith." (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94.)

Here, the Complaint was filed on October 27, 2025. Defendant Patelco filed its Answer on January 9, 2026. Patelco subsequently discovered facts surrounding Plaintiff's conduct which form the basis for its