Compliance Hearing
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings May 28, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-21-004762 - TORRES, MAYRA vs MANUEL VILLA ENTERPRISES INC - Compliance Hearing - IN COMPLIANCE. The Court will sign the amended proposed judgment and send a copy to the Judicial Council.
CV-24-010510 - BARAJAS, ROLANDO ORTEGA vs DONS MOBILE GLASS INC - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Andrea Ortega to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Verifications; and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Andrea Ortega to Defendants' Request for Production, Set Two; Request for Production of Documents; Verifications; and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Rolando Ortega to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Rolando Ortega to Defendants' Request for Production, Set Two; Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. a-d) The Court wants to know how the matters were resolved. The Court is inclined to issue sanctions in the amount of $3,000 to cover all motions; Defendant had some overbroad requests but Plaintiffs' failures were substantial.
CV-25-002365 - DAVY, PATRICIA vs D & G BARBER SHOP - a) Defendant Chahal Family 2020 Trust's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. b) Defendant Chahal Family 2020 Trust's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. c) Defendant Chahal Family 2020 Trust's Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED. a-c) The Court wants to know what Defendant's position on sanctions is.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge James D. Garbolino in Department 22:
CV-25-007540 - MCFADDEN, LINDA vs CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL - a) Ruling on Demurrer - SUSTAINED without leave to amend. b) Ruling on Demurrer - SUSTAINED without leave to amend. a-b) Tentative Ruling on Filing of Proposed Second Amended Complaint and Adoption of Tentative Ruling of February 5, 2026 The court adopts its previous tentative ruling SUSTAINING Defendants' demurrers to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without leave to amend posted February 5, 2026, and STRIKES Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Complaint.
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?”
I. History of Case
A. Complaint and First Amended Complaint. On August 6, 2025, Linda McFadden, a sitting judge of the Stanislaus County Superior Court filed a complaint against the California Judicial Council, (hereinafter JCC) and the Stanislaus County Superior Court (hereinafter SCSC). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 15, 2025, alleging six causes of action: The first five causes of action alleged violations of FEHA by both the JCC and the SCSC. [1] The grounds asserted by Judge McFadden under FEHA allege disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The sixth cause of action (against the JCC only) is based on allegations of violation of provisions of Labor Code Sec.1102.5, whistleblower retaliation.