ALEXANDER, STEVEN vs BURLYS CALIFORNIA BISTRO INC

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings September 10, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-24-008226 - MEDINA, JOHN, Jr vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC - Defendant Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint Against Destination Anywhere Inc. - DENIED without prejudice. Given Destination Anywhere's prior appearances in this case and the extensive litigation on issues involved in the cross-complaint, the Court declines to hear the motion without service on it under the "in furtherance of justice" provision of Code Civ. Proc. Section 473.

CV-25-000545 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs ROJAS, NIOMI - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment; in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial - DENIED. Plaintiff now concedes that mandatory relief is unavailable. (See: Noceti v. Whorton (2014) 224 Cal.App.4 th 1062, 1067.) Plaintiff does not offer a case for the proposition that the motion to vacate judgment may be made post-trial, but argues that the legislature would exclude that if they wanted to. However, a motion for new trial is governed expressly by Code Civ.

Proc. section 657 and Rule of Court 3.1600. In this case, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant a motion for new trial given the failure of timely notice. There are no cases which support a new trial other than under the new trial statute. And even if timely notice had been given, the Court has no basis under that code section to grant a new trial. Consider the effect if this were allowed: After a trial in which counsel fails to secure a key witness due to excusable neglect, they would be entitled to a new trial or a vacatur of the judgment as a matter of right.

This cannot possibly be the standard; as applied in this case it might not lead to any injustice, but as a principle it could not be enforced. The Court does not reach the issue of whether failure to provide any admissible evidence is excusable neglect.

CV-25-001402 - ALEXANDER, STEVEN vs BURLYS CALIFORNIA BISTRO INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees - GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion for Amendment of Judgment - GRANTED as modified and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 1717. Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds that the time expended and the hourly fees claimed are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover to $11,543.75 in attorney's fees from Defendant Gaynor. Gaynor argues she has no ability to pay, which may be accurate, but is not actionable at this stage.

b) Burly's is the defaulted corporation, and judgment will be entered against them. The Court proposes a separate judgment against Burly's as attorney fees would be limited to the default schedule.

CV-26-004874 - ANHAR, MICHAEL N vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against City of Turlock to Enjoin its Unauthorized Public Disclosure of Petitioner's Constitutionally Protected Personally Identifiable Information - GRANTED. The letter to Anhar indicating a lifetime waiver of some privacy rights had already occurred was not ideal, and the City's choices in their response are appropriate, though I place no blame on Petitioner for reacting as he did to that assertion. This was not rationally a meet-and-confer issue, and the City's position was facially unreasonable at best. The City's current position is more nearly correct.

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