CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY INC vs EDMONSONESCOLAR, DEBRA

allegations in the case, which are insufficient to create a material factual dispute on summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).)

In addition, Plaintiff's particular allegations regarding Defendant's post-incident liability appear to have been negated by the evidence in support of UMF 13, which was undisputed by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court again concludes that Defendant met its initial burden on summary judgment herein.

The Court further concludes that the defense's evidentiary objections and opposition to Plaintiff's request for judicial notice were well-taken, and its rulings sustaining the objections and denying judicial notice are supported by the law. In reviewing this issue, however, the Court notes that it inadvertently failed to enter an order identifying the specific grounds for its rulings in this regard. Therefore, the Court will sign the defense's proposed order on objections, nunc pro tunc to the date of its ruling on the motion for summary judgment (6-16-26).

CV-25-004732 - SECREASE, TAKETHIA vs WENDYS OF THE PACIFIC INC - Defendant Wendy's of the Pacific Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff, Takethia Secrease's Complaint - DENIED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant's Separate Statement identifies only one issue for determination; therefore, it appears that grounds for summary adjudication have not been asserted herein.

With regard to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, met the initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment based on the submitted evidence. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.437c(p)(2).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden in this regard and has demonstrated the existence of material factual disputes, at a minimum, with regard to UMF 11, 24, 25, 26, and 27 and Plaintiff's additional facts.

In addition, the Court declines to disregard the challenged factual assertions contained in Plaintiff's supporting declaration in accordance with Defendant's argument that these exceed the scope of the pleadings herein on the grounds. Pleadings are liberally construed (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 452), and the challenged factual assertions herein merely elaborate on Plaintiff's claim involving the same fundamental instrumentality identified in the pleadings, i.e., the accumulation of liquid on the floor of the restaurant. (See, e.g. Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 226.)

Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's evidence are not submitted in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court declines to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)

CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

c) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

d) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-d) In view of Plaintiff's counsel's withdrawal from her representation, these matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. Defense counsel shall make genuine efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff, in pro per, with regard to the issues presented herein and shall file a supplemental declaration describing such efforts and the results no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

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

CV-24-000245 - CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY INC vs EDMONSONESCOLAR, DEBRA - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court finds that Defendant's motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Notably, (1) the motion is not brought within 6 months of the entry of default against Defendant; (2) Defendant does not allege any mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect; and (3) is not supported by Defendant's Proposed Answer.

As to the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, the motion is timely brought based on Defendant's declaration as to when she received actual notice of this action, though not within a reasonable time. In addition, Defendant's declaration does not attest to said lack of actual notice not being caused by Defendant's inexcusable neglect. Also, the motion is not supported by Defendant's required Proposed Answer. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is hereby denied without prejudice.

CV-26-000239 - BELL, WILLIAM vs BENHAM, CHRISTOPHER - Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service by Publication - DENIED, without prejudice.

This motion was filed on 5/19/26 requesting service of Plaintiff's Complaint on Defendant Jesse Medlock by publication alleging inability to serve Defendant despite multiple diligent attempts. The motion is not supported by any declaration by Plaintiff or by any affidavit of diligence.

That aside, the Court file indicates that Plaintiff thereafter amended his Complaint which was filed with the Court on 6/26/26. The Court file also indicates that Plaintiff attempted service on Defendant Jesse Medlock, the same Defendant in respect of which Plaintiff now seeks service by publication, with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Summons by mail with a Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt of 6/26/26 per the proof of service on file. However, the Completed Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt are not attached to the proof of service There is also no indication that Defendant Medlock has executed and returned the signature portion of said Notice of Acknowledgment. Therefore, service is not complete as to said Defendant Medlock.

Notably, per Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 415.50 (a), "A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article". However, to the extent that the motion seeks publication as to the Complaint, which has now been overtaken by Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and it appears that other effective avenues exist for service on Defendant, Plaintiff's motion is hereby denied without prejudice.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***