| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Yosemite Community College District, Set No. Two, and Request for an Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Defense Counsel
The Court is inclined to overrule the Demurrer. The three-day notice begins on the date of service. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1170.) Here, the notice was served on April 9, 2026. The instant matter is unlike the notice in Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5 th 433 because here the service date listed on the notice is the same date the notice was served. Next, Plaintiff waited until after the expiration of the three-day notice period before filing the complaint. Nothing in section 1170 requires a 30 day notice period.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-000411 - PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. Notwithstanding Counsel's attestation to his client having fled to Mexico without knowledge of his whereabouts, the Court requires that Counsel mail the moving papers to the client's last known address. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362). Accordingly, this matter is continued to June 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for Counsel to accomplish said service.
CV-23-002153 - WILKINS, JANENE R vs YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Yosemite Community College District, Set No. Two, and Request for an Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Defense Counsel in the Sum Of $4,550 - GRANTED, in part. DENIED, in part. The Court finds that Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 106, 107, 108 are not Code Compliant for failing to "specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party."
Defendants response also failed to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230) Defendants' response to Request for Production No. 117 fails to "affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand", fails to "state whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen" and fails to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230). Accordingly, Defendant shall provide further, verified Code compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos 106, 107, 108 and 117.
A prelitigation factual investigation conducted by outside counsel retained by city into Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint filed by former employee, who worked for city as firefighter and paramedic, was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in employee's suit against city under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment, discrimination based on sex, and retaliation, even though counsel's role was limited to factual investigation and did not extend to providing legal advice; dominant purpose of counsel's representation was to provide professional legal services to city attorney so that he, in turn, was able to advise city on appropriate course of action.”(City of Petaluma v.
Superior Court (2016) 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 248 Cal.App.4th 1023, review filed, review denied. "If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.240; Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116). The purpose of a "privilege log" is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege. (Hernandez v.
Superior Ct., (2003), 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, as modified (Oct. 23, 2003). A privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.”(Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court, supra). Defendant's privilege log does not meet these requirements and is deficient.
Plaintiff makes unsubstantiated claims of the waiver of Defendants attorney client privilege to support a request for the investigative report at issue without providing support for those claims. Therefore, the court cannot presently compel the production of the documents sought in Request for Production No. 116. (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 110). Defendant shall provide a further Code compliant privilege log. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116).
All further responses shall be provided within ten days of the date of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.310). Based on the Joint Status Report submitted by the parties and the attached correspondence, the Court understands that sanctions are no longer sought by Plaintiff and therefore makes no award regarding monetary sanctions.
CV-24-000171 - HERNANDEZ, JOSE V vs SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES INC - Final Fairness - HEARING REQUIRED. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein.
In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec.384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for Friday, December 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement. At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Civ. Code Sec.1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).
CV-24-008960 - RODRIGUEZ, OSCAR vs CUPCAKE BOUTIQUE LLC - Defendant's Motion to Reclassify Action from Unlimited to Limited Civil Jurisdiction - DENIED, without prejudice. The Court notes that the motion does not demonstrate proof of service on Plaintiff. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005) Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-25-008787 - GHAI, CHARANJIT vs CITY OF CERES CITY COUNCIL - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 for further review and consideration. In addition, the Court on its own motion VACATES the Case Management Conference set for May 21, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 and RE-SETS it to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
CV-25-012483 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC - Defendant George Hills' General and Special Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, OVERRULED, in part, with leave to amend