Defendant Stanislaus County's Motion to Bifurcate Trial
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 2, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
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-22-001613 - WATTLE, DANNY LEE vs PLM OPERATIONS LLC - Compliance Hearing - DROPPED. Based on the May 22, 2026 declaration of Bryn Bridley, the Court finds that compliance has been demonstrated and no hearing is necessary. Class counsel is directed to submit a form of amended judgment which identifies the amount of unclaimed settlement funds to be deposited with the State Controller for handling pursuant to that office's unclaimed property procedures. Lastly, Class counsel shall submit a form of revised order reflecting the Court's ruling herein.
CV-23-001506 - DOE, JOHN vs STANISLAUS COUNTY - Defendant Stanislaus County's Motion to Bifurcate Trial - DENIED. Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for the Court to order bifurcation in this instance pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 1048 or 598.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-23-000016 - IREIT TURLOCK BLOSSOM VALLEY LLC vs DECHINA 1 BUFFET INC - Defendant Ouchina Buffet, Inc's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint - MOOT. Following Defendant Ouchina Buffet's dismissal from this action without prejudice, this demurrer is rendered moot.
CV-23-005108 - ESQUIVEL, JUDY vs MONTUY, POLLY - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default - DENIED, without prejudice. The Court notes that Defendants' Motion does not demonstrate proof of service on Plaintiffs. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b)). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is hereby denied without prejudice
CV-23-007007 - HAMMERSTROM, BRUCE vs VASQUEZ, GEORGE - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Complaint for Intentional Tort - GRANTED, unopposed. Upon a consideration of all the evidence and testimony adduced, the Court finds that no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant Duke committed an intentional tort against Plaintiff herein and whether Defendant conspired with other Defendants to commit said intentional tort and whether Plaintiff suffered any physical, mental and or emotional injury as a result.
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?”
The undisputed evidence establishes Defendant lacked the requisite intent for the alleged cause of action for intentional tort, did not conspire with any of the Defendants to commit said tort and did not cause Plaintiff any physical or mental injury or emotional distress. (Defendant's SSUMFs 1-12; Defendant's Exhibits A-E; Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 437(c); Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., (2001), 25 Cal. 4th 826, as modified (July 11, 2001)
The Court therefore grants Defendant Charles Duke's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice as against Defendant Charles Duke.