WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VELAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings September 3, 2026 The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-25-003485 - ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA - Defendant's Motion to Correct Clerical Error on Order after Hearing - GRANTED, and unopposed.

CV-25-008039 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs KATICICH RANCH INC - Plaintiff's to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 - GRANTED in part, and unopposed. Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the motion is granted, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff's favor for the total amount of $277,971.62, which represents the principal amount of $271,184.46 plus interest of 6,787.16. The motion references costs and attorney's fees, but the parties' agreement contains no provision for recovery of the same herein. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order and judgment consistent with the Court's ruling herein.

CV-25-009800 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VELAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED. The late-filed opposition appears to simply challenge attorneys fees and costs, and appears to challenge the amount of them. This matter is not ripe for decision on that, as a costs memorandum and declaration for attorney fees has not been provided. Plaintiff has adequately shown facts which entitle summary judgment, and Defendant does not contest that she owes the amount on the card.

CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - Defendant's Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Proceeding - CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to September 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21, along with the Case Management Conference. This Court is taking the related cases under Rule 3.300, and a minute order reassigning cases CV-26-5535 and CV-26-4037 to this Department, vacating all dates on those, and resetting them for Case Management Conference in this Department at the same time is forthcoming. The Court needs additional time to review the agreements.

CV-26-002823 - COLE, KAYLA RENEE vs UHAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS INC - Defendant U-Haul Co. of California's Motion Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED. A petition to compel arbitration requires the moving party to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the controversy falls within the agreement's scope. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.2.) Here, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the existence or execution of the arbitration agreement. The principal issue is scope.

The arbitration clause is notably broad. It applies to "any dispute, complaint, controversy, or cause of action arising out of or relating to your relationship with U-Haul or any prior, current or future Transaction with U-Haul." The agreement further provides that "[a]ll claims, including assigned claims, brought under any legal theory, whether at law or in equity, are covered by this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, all statutory and tort claims, that may be asserted." The agreement defines "Transaction" to mean, among other things, "the commencement, completion, or fulfillment of: A) a request or reservation to rent, use or purchase Equipment or to receive services; B) the use or review of the content of any U-Haul website; or C) any entry onto any U-Haul or U-Haul agent's property." (Trudell Decl., Exh.

A, U-Haul Arbitration Agreement, Sec. 2(a), (e).)