Defendant's Ric (Atherstone) LLC and Romspen California Mortgage Limited Partnership's Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action; Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Sustaining Demurrer Pursuant to CCP 473(b)
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings May 27, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-005616 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs TRIGUEROS, JOSE - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Amend Default Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc - GRANTED in part.
The Court's judgment of $2102.91 entered on January 20, 2026, against Defendant was based on an incorrect computation. The Court's attention has been drawn to this error. Accordingly, the Court's January 20,2026 order is hereby vacated. The correct judgment amount of $1310.91, which accounts for a credit of $6284.00 for payments made by Defendant and costs of $0 is hereby entered. The Court deliberately signed the order and Plaintiff sought the amount, so the Court may not do so nunc pro tunc. The Court will modify and sign the Proposed Order.
CV-25-005773 - ART BUILDINGS LLC vs ROMSPEN CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - a) Defendant's Ric (Atherstone) LLC and Romspen California Mortgage Limited Partnership's Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) - GRANTED; b) Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order Sustaining Demurrer Pursuant to CCP 473(b) - DENIED.
a) Both parties' requests for judicial notice are granted. (Evidence Code sections 452 (c) and (d) and 453) Defendant's evidentiary objections to the declaration of Tracy Wood are sustained on grounds of lack of foundation and personal knowledge, (Evid. Code Sec.Sec. 403, 702). Given the Court's ruling of April 22, 2026, sustaining Defendant's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend, no pendency of action exists. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 405.31 and Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 405.32; Newell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2024) 107 Cal. App. 5 th 728).”
Defendants are the prevailing party and entitled to their attorney fees and costs (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 405.38; Trapasso v. Superior Court of Orange County (1977), 73 Cal.App.3d 561; J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2022) 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 110; Castro v. Superior Ct., (2004)116 Cal. App. 4 th 1010). The attorney fees sought in this matter vastly exceed the local rates charged. Ms. Zhu's rate is modified to $250 per hour, Mr. Hartford's to $500 per hour and Mr. Root's to $450 per hour. That is $3,250 for Ms. Zhu, $2,125 for Mr. Hartford, and $10,800 for Mr. Root. This totals $16,175 in attorney fees which will be ordered paid by Plaintiff. The Court will modify and sign the proposed order.
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?”
b) Plaintiff's motion appears founded on the erroneous premise that the Court did not consider Plaintiff's Opposition in addressing Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. This was likely based in part on some language which was not carefully edited between the first hearing on this matter and the second. The Court's Ruling of April 22, 2026 directly quoted from Plaintiff's Opposition. (See page 2 of said Ruling). Plaintiff's Reply says that the motion is not based on not considering the Opposition, but this appears to be inconsistent.
The Court considered the late-filed opposition, and rejected it. The motion is denied. The Court has now ruled twice on the demurrer despite substantial irregularities in the timing of pleadings. As Defendant observes, the statute is not designed to permit a do-over when Plaintiff made inconsistent and insufficient choices in their pleadings even after leave to amend.
CV-25-012288 - VEGA, GLORIA vs US RENAL CARE INC - a) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - WITHDRAWN; b) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's