Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 9, 2026
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: CV-25-003106 - CHAVEZ, MARIANNE MORALES vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED to June 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.
21.
The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2016.040, which requires "a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040.)
Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient because there was only an email as opposed to a meet and confer either in person, by telephone, or by video conference. A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.
The Court anticipates that counsel, who are familiar with each other, will resolve their differences. If not, counsel is to provide a joint statement of remaining issues on or before June 23, 2026.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: CV-25-007871 - PRATT, ANGELIQUE vs STANISLAUS REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY - Plaintiff's Petition for Order Permitting Late Claim Against a Governmental Entity (Gov Code Section 946.6) - GRANTED.
"If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4." (Gov. Code, Sec. 946.6.) "[T]he plain language of section 946.6 shows its six-month period begins to run on denial of an application for leave[.]" City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.
"The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that . . . [t]he failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4." (Gov. Code, Sec. 946.6.)
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?”
Here, Plaintiff filed government tort claim forms with two of the three defendants prior to filing suit. Plaintiff's prior counsel mistakenly believed that the third defendant, Stanislaus County Affordable Housing Corporation was a non-profit organization as opposed to a government entity. Upon learning of the error, Plaintiff promptly submitted a late claim. Stanislaus County Affordable Housing Corporation took no action on the claim and Plaintiff promptly filed the instant petition.
The Court finds that relief here is warranted. Stanislaus County Affordable Housing Corporation argues that there is prejudice in the form of evidence loss, unavailable witnesses, and faded memories. Stanislaus County Affordable Housing Corporation's argument is not persuasive.
Stanislaus County Affordable Housing Corporation has been on notice of this claim since the instant action was filed and nothing has stopped it from preserving evidence, investigating, interviewing employees and witnesses, or taking statements. Indeed, one might argue that it was required to preserve evidence as soon as it was on notice of the action. Further, it is standard practice to maintain forwarding addresses for former employees and in any event, persons can be found even if they have moved on to another employer.