Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 4, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-21-003139 - SOUZA, ANITA vs BERT, PATRICK J - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing Settlement Terms - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court needs assistance on the procedural posture of the case.
CV-25-003485 - ESTACIO, ANGELA vs CABRAL, ANNA - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint- GRANTED; HEARING REQUIRED on attorney fee request. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment. The Court has broad discretion in this area and there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 473(a)(1), 576.) In general, defects in the amended complaint should be addressed through other processes other than denial of leave to amend. The reply indicates that Plaintiff was willing to make adjustments to the complaint prior to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court wants to discuss that with counsel.
CV-25-008039 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs KATICICH RANCH INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 - DENIED, without prejudice. Proof of service is insufficient to establish notice to the corporate defendant, in that it appears the moving papers were not directed to an authorized agent or representative of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 416.10 et seq.) A corporation can have knowledge only through its officers and agents. (See, e.g. Snyder v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 660, 664.) Further, the Court notes a discrepancy between Defendant's address as indicated in the Proof of Service of Summons (Walnut Road) and the address indicated for Defendant in Plaintiff's Proof of Service for the instant motion (Fairchild Road).
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-24-010410 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs CRAWFORD, SHAWN A - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - GRANTED. Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, the Court finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no defense to the causes of action set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint by producing evidence of each element of the cause of action asserted therein. (Code Civ.
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?”
Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(1).) The burden then shifts to Defendant to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of material factual disputes preventing judgment. Defendant has failed to carry his burden in that regard, as he has presented no controverting evidence in opposition. Additionally, while Defendant attempts to invoke the arbitration provisions in the parties' agreement, the Court finds that Defendant unreasonably delayed in pursuing arbitration and has waived the right to proceed in that forum under the circumstances.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the principal amount of $22,299.88. Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant failed to submit his objections in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court is not obligated to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)
Plaintiff shall submit proposed forms of order and judgment consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
CV-25-008572 - SYNCHRONY BANK vs DEWEERDT, CAROL - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes a discrepancy between Defendant's mailing address as indicated in the proof of service for Plaintiff's for Dismissal, which was submitted on 3-13-26, and that which appears on the notice of default dated 3-6-26 (Exhibit 2 to counsel's supporting declaration herein) and on the proof of service for the instant motion (dated 4-22-26), as both of the latter appear to have been directed to Morning Law Group in Irvine, California. As the Court cannot determine from the documents on file whether the notice of default and instant motion were properly served, counsel shall appear to address this issue.
CV-25-010863 - SALVEMINI, SUMI vs TRACY RIDGE HEALTHCARE INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Advance the Trial Date- - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court intends to GRANT the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 36(a).) Counsel shall appear at the time of the hearing in order to select a mutually agreeable trial date within the parameters specified by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 36(f).
UD-26-000442 - HARRIS, DEBRA vs TELLER, CHANTEL - Defendant's Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-21-005695 - GHARRAEE, ZAHRA vs TRADER JOES COMPANY - Cross Appellant's, Zahra Gharraee's Motion to Use Settled Statement on Appeal - DENIED.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to proceed by settled statement under rule 8.137(b)(2) and, in the alternative, for leave to amend APP-003 to reflect an election under rule 8.137(b)(1). Plaintiff asserts that on September 10, 11, 12, and 18, 2025, the jury was presented with videotaped or read deposition testimony of nine nonparty witnesses, that no court reporter was present for those presentations, and that a settled statement is therefore needed to create an appellate record. Plaintiff attributes an incorrect box selection on APP-003 to inadvertence and submits a proposed amended APP-003 as Exhibit 1 to the Moreno Declaration.
Defendant opposes, arguing Plaintiff is attempting to use rule 8.137 to bypass rule 2.1040's procedure for preserving deposition recordings presented at trial; that rule 8.137 does not authorize importing nearly 250 pages of deposition transcripts in lieu of a condensed narrative; that the request is premature under rule 8.130(h) because the clerk has not issued a notice that any portion of designated proceedings cannot be transcribed; and that the parties dispute what deposition excerpts were actually played or stipulated to.
Defendant supports the opposition with declarations from attorneys Hall and Mathis asserting, among other things, that Plaintiff's April 22, 2026, proposed statement includes transcript portions not in Plaintiff's designations and that Defendant disputes those portions were shown to the jury. Mathis identifies examples of lines for multiple witnesses that, in her review, were not included in Plaintiff's written designations and, to her knowledge and recollection, were not played at trial. Plaintiff replies that rule 2.1040 governs trial procedures for electronic recordings and does not bar use of a settled statement on appeal when the trial record is incomplete; that disagreements about what occurred are precisely what the settled-statement process is designed to resolve; and proposes a timeline to proceed under rule 8.137.
Analysis
The Court finds that Plaintiff's request is procedurally improper. California Rules of Court (discussed in the parties' papers) Rule 8.137 permits use of a settled statement as a summary of superior court proceedings, including when (1) the designated oral proceedings were not reported by a court reporter (rule 8.137(b)(1)(A)) or (2) on motion for other reasons (rule 8.137(b)(2)), and describes content and process, including that the statement must be a "condensed narrative of the oral proceedings" and sets deadlines for service, amendments, and settlement (rule 8.137(c)-(e)) .