Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings May 29, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-006292 - RICHARDSON, CHELSEY vs TELECARE CORPORATION - Final Approval - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has some questions for the parties, including questions regarding the proposed PAGA split. See Labor Code section 2699 as amended in 2024.
CV-25-008466 - WRIGHT, CALVIN vs KHUU, JOHN - a) Defendant's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part. b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations from the First Amended Complaint - DENIED as MOOT.
a) Demurrer For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part.
Legal Standards A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The complaint must be construed liberally, drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (See Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517, as modified (Feb. 28, 2001) .). Even improbable facts are accepted as true on demurrer. (See Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, 104-105, disapproved of on inapposite grounds by Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1106
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?”
Discussion
Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Causes of Action The allegations in the first amended complaint ("FAC") are sufficient to support the negligence and breach of duty causes of action. Previously, the Court debated whether to sustain or overrule the demurrer to these claims. With the expanded underlying allegations, the pleading of these causes of action now survives demurrer.
Plaintiff now alleges an expanded historical background asserting that the development has been troubled since at least 2008. (FAC P. 20.) Plaintiff alleges that since 2019, the Western Hills Water District ("WHWD") has run a monthly operational shortfall of between $150,000 to $200,000. (FAC P. 21.) Plaintif further alleges that the WHWD has been unable to pay Kern County basic water charges. (Id.) "In December 2020, residents of Diablo Grande took control of WHWD. By August 2023, WHWD foreclosed on properties due to both World International and angel investor Angel Crossing's failure to pay special taxes." (Id.)
The reasonable inference from the allegations (which must be drawn in the Plaintiff's favor on demurrer) is that any competent realtor would have been aware that Diablo Grande was a troubled development and would have warned his or her client about these issues. Plaintiff bought his house in September 2023; the WHWD foreclosures occurred a month before his purchase and likely during the time when Plaintiff was actively looking for a home.
Negligent Misrepresentation Moving Defendants group the third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and fourth cause of action for fraud (concealment) together in arguing that the causes of action still lack specificity. (See Mem., at pp. 11-12.) Plaintiff contends that negligent misrepresentation is subject to a less stringent pleading standard but cites no authority in support of this proposition. (See Opp., at p. 5.)