Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Plaintiff may be able to state viable causes of action. The Court therefore grants one last opportunity to amend. Amended complaint to be filed in 10 days.
b) Motion to Strike The motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT. However, the Court also notes that the motion is procedurally defective; the motion itself fails to specify the portions of the pleading at issue.
CV-26-004269 - BETHEL, KENNETH vs NEW CENTURY CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING INC - Petitioner's Verified Petition for Release and Expungement of Mechanic's Lien and for Attorney's Fees and Costs - HEARING REQUIRED. A hearing is required on this matter. Under the statutory procedure governing petitions to release property from an expired mechanic's lien, the petition and compliance with the hearing and service requirements are deemed controverted, and Petitioners bear the burden of producing evidence on those matters. (See Civ. Code, Sec. 8488(a).) No opposition is showing in the court file. Therefore, should Petitioners meet their initial burden of production, the Court is inclined to GRANT the petition.
Request for Judicial Notice The unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 8488(c), if Petitioners prevail, they are entitled to their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Here, Petitioners have requested $2,532.50. This amount comprises $1,972.50 in fees and costs including court filing fees of $435.00; online processing and service fees of at least $30.00; and County Recorder recording fees estimated at $95.00. The Court will discuss this request with the parties at the hearing.
Proposed Order If the Court grants the petition, Petitioners shall be expected to submit a proposed order that conforms to the Court's ruling and that contains all the information required by Civil Code Sec. 8490(a) within five court days.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-008187 - GUILLEN, CLAUDIA vs BELMARE SENIOR LIVING LLC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00 - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and to have Requests Nos. 4, 6, 20, 24-33 Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC; Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00 - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that additional further responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents were served on 5-14-26, and Defendant indicates willingness to continue to meet and confer with regard to additional further responses to the Requests for Admissions. Therefore, the Court believes the potential exists for the parties to resolve and/or narrow the disputes herein if additional meet and confer attempts are made in good faith.
The hearings are continued for this purpose. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement by June 23, 2026, describing their further efforts to resolve the issues and briefly stating their respective positions on any items remaining in dispute. Lastly, the Court reminds counsel that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v.
Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) The Court believes that many, if not all, of the disputes herein are amenable to informal resolution, and the parties are expected to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.
CV-25-012169 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs AZEVEDO, MANUEL J - Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to a 103,180 sq. ft. fee acquisition from a portion of the subject property located at 342 North Hart Road, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, County Assessor's Parcel Number 012-039-014 by eminent domain for its planned State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.
The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $129,200.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon and take prejudgment possession of the subject property. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the subject property within (30) days of service of this Order.
Service of this Order shall be made in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450, subdivisions (d) and (f). If the owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, fail to deliver possession of the Property upon the demand of County pursuant to this Order, a Writ of Assistance may issue ex parte upon the affidavit of a representative of Plaintiff showing that such owner(s) or occupant(s), if any, have failed to deliver possession of the Property.
CV-26-001432 - CARLOS, JUAN vs TEEPLES PLUMBING & DRILLING INC - Defendant Teeples Plumbing & Drilling, Inc's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.
CV-25-000613 - LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III - a) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
b) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
c) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
d) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
a-d) The Court notes that Plaintiff is now self-represented, due to the Court's order granting her counsel's motion to withdraw on 4-15-26. Therefore, the Court believes that defense counsel should provide the outstanding discovery requests to Plaintiff directly to allow her an opportunity to respond before the Court rules on the instant motions. The hearings are CONTINUED, as above, for this purpose, and defense counsel shall serve the outstanding requests on Plaintiff by June 5, 2026, with corresponding proof of service of the same to be filed herein. Defense counsel shall also promptly serve notice of the continued hearing dates for the instant motions on Plaintiff.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***
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?”