Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6
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.)