Plaintiff's Petition for Order Permitting Late Claim Against a Governmental Entity
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.
Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code, section 946.6, the Court GRANTS the petition.
CV-25-011679 - BAUSER, TIMOTHY vs GREEN, MATTHEW MILTON - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.
The hearing on this matter is continued on the Court's own motion for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.
PR-25-000754 - In the Matter of THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
b) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
c) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
a-c) These matters are CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion on calendar that day.
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) Defendant's Motion for Determination for Good Faith Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Defendant's Request to File Documents Under Seal - GRANTED, and unopposed.
(a) MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 877, 877.6) RULING: GRANTED. Defendant Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's motion for determination of good faith settlement is unopposed and is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.
In determining whether a settlement is made in good faith, the Court has considered the factors articulated in Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, including: (1) a rough approximation of Plaintiff's total recovery and the settling defendant's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the recognition that a settling defendant should pay less in settlement than if found liable at trial; (4) the allocation of settlement proceeds; (5) the settling defendant's financial condition and insurance coverage; and (6) the absence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non settling defendants.
Based on the evidence submitted, including the declarations filed in support of the motion, the Court finds that: The settlement amount falls within a reasonable range of Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's potential proportional liability when viewed in light of Plaintiff's claimed damages and the evidence regarding comparative fault; The settlement reflects a reasonable compromise and appropriately accounts for litigation risks and costs; Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's limited financial condition and lack of applicable insurance coverage support the reasonableness of the settlement amount; The settlement was reached through arm's length negotiations following mediation with an experienced neutral; and There is no evidence of collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct designed to shift an unfair share of liability to the non-settling defendant.
Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement was made in good faith. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the settlement bars any claims for contribution or equitable indemnity against Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC by any non-settling party.