Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Party Prevailing on Contract and to Fix Amount of Attorney's Fees Awardable as Item of Costs
only, that Plaintiff never contributed to the home, and that the home was not listed as a community property asset in the divorce settlement.
On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff submitted opposition briefs.
On June 5, 2026, Defendant submitted a reply brief.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is procedurally defective. A party seeking to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint must do so by demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 430.10; 430.30(a).) Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Defendant's demurrer is procedurally defective. A demurrer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 430.40(a).) Here, the Defendant was served on January 11, 2026 but did not submit the demurrer until four months later on May 8, 2026. The demurrer is untimely.
The demurer also fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a), which requires that "[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.41.) Here, there was no meet and confer. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
PR-24-000599 - Estate of ALBANO, GEORGETTE ARLENE - Petitioner's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED without prejudice.
The motion is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service in the court file showing service of the papers on the client and all parties who have appeared in the matter (including creditors) as required by rules 3.1300(c) and 3.1362(d) of the California Rules of Court. In addition, the Court requires notice to the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate as set forth in Item 8 of the petition for probate. Because the motion is procedurally defective, it is DENIED without prejudice.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-007641 - KHINOO, JANICE DENYSE vs ASPIRANET - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
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 Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:
7-13-26 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
7-27-26 Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
9-10-26 Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
10-23-26 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for November 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court. The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
CV-25-004778 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs MOUNTAIN VIEW HARVESTING LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Party Prevailing on Contract and to Fix Amount of Attorney's Fees Awardable as Item of Costs - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 1717. Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds that the time expended and the hourly fees claimed are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover to $8,927.50 in attorney's fees from Defendant Sing herein.
The Court notes that the total amount of fees described in the moving papers differs from the total reflected in the billing documentation attached to counsel's declaration in support of the motion. However, as it appears the correct amount is reflected in the proposed order, the Court will sign the order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-005435 - In re 517 FORT HENRY DRIVE MODESTO CA 95354 - a) Petitioner's Petition Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee's Sale - DENIED. b) Claimant's Motion for Claim of Surplus Funds - DENIED.
a-b) After review of the supplemental submissions of the parties relative to the Court's proposed judicial notice of the existence of a prior probate proceeding and related documents which may affect the distribution of the subject funds, the Court determines to take judicial notice of the probate proceeding (PR23-919), the existence of the will, and the creditor's claim filed therein. (Evid. Code Sec. 455; Estate of Russell (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 758, 765-766; Pike v. Archibald (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 114, 117.)
As a result, the Court finds that the instant matters are not appropriate for adjudication at this time, as it appears the parties need to pursue the matter in a probate proceeding in order to ensure proper handling of the funds in accordance with the law and the applicable legal instrument (will). The subject funds will remain on deposit with the court until such time as the probate division adjudicates the matter.
CV-25-009663 - CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY vs OMARI, AHMAD RESHAD - Plaintiff's Motion to Discharge & Dismiss Stakeholder Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 386(B); 386.5 - DENIED, without prejudice.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate service of the moving papers on Defendant Singh. In addition, it appears Plaintiff failed to submit the supporting memorandum for the Court's consideration. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1112(a).)
CV-25-011109 - DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Defendant Robert J. Altman M.D.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
The Court finds that the pleading is deficient as against Dr. Altman due to misjoinder of multiple plaintiffs who fail to allege facts describing the same transaction, occurrence, or a related series of acts within the parameters established by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 378. (Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826.) Moreover, based on the nature of the facts alleged and in light of the controlling case authority, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to amend the allegations to satisfy the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 378 in this instance. Therefore, leave to amend is denied, and Plaintiffs are required to pursue their claims against Dr. Altman separately.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-002332 - CASTRO, MICHAEL ANDREW vs MUSCARELLA, STEVEN - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only - GRANTED.
The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the proposed class and representative action settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for purposes of preliminary approval. Specifically, the Court finds:
The proposed settlement is the result of arm's’length negotiations conducted with the assistance of an experienced mediator, following sufficient investigation and informal discovery to permit counsel to reasonably evaluate the strengths and risks of the claims.
The proposed Settlement Class is appropriately defined for settlement purposes only, and provisional certification is warranted.
Plaintiff is an adequate Class Representative, and proposed Class Counsel are experienced and adequate to represent the interests of the Settlement Class.
The Gross Settlement Amount of $365,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs, settlement administration expenses, service award, and PAGA penalties, is reasonable in light of the alleged claims, the risks of continued litigation, and the anticipated recovery to class members.
The proposed allocation of PAGA penalties complies with statutory requirements, and Plaintiff has provided