Petitioner's Verified Petition for Order Confirming Appraisal Award
propounded on Plaintiff on May 1, 2025, and demonstrated mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect by Plaintiff's Counsel for the untimely responses, the motion is DENIED as moot.
However, the Court GRANTS Defendant $510 as monetary sanctions jointly and severally against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's firm for Defendant's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion occasioned by Plaintiff's failure to file timely response thereto, payable within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290(c).)
Defendant's request for a much larger amount of sanctions is facially unreasonable. Defendant to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to the Court's ruling.
CV-24-001542 - ADAMS, JANICE vs NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Petitioner's Verified Petition for Order Confirming Appraisal Award - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court would like to discuss this matter with the parties. The Court has no record of the opposition that Petitioner indicates in her reply was served on June 10, 2026. The Court does have a sparse motion filed by Respondent which is currently set for July 7, 2026. The Court has further questions regarding the timeliness of Respondent's filings.
CV-24-009853 - JONES, LATISHA MONIQUE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.
21. The Court needs additional time to rule and apologizes for the delay.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-21-001363 - NARANJO, JOSHUA vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of Declaratory Judgment and Breach of Contract Causes of Action - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant, Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc's Motion to Seal Records Filed in Connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc's Motion to Seal Records Filed in Connection with Its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The parties have submitted voluminous briefing, declarations, and exhibits in connection with Plaintiff's motion for class certification with respect to causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, or in the alternative, with respect to one or more of three proposed particular issues. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion.
Background
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?”
This matter arises from a dispute over fees charged by Defendant when a patient visits the emergency room. Plaintiff contends that Defendant breaches its own common form Consent for Treatment and Conditions for Admission contract ("COA") used in Defendant's emergency room. Plaintiff alleges that the COA allows Defendant to charge only for services actually rendered by Defendant and does not include an agreement to pay a separate Emergency Room Visitation Fee (also referred to as an "evaluation and management services fee"), which Plaintiff contends is a fee designed to cover overhead costs of running an emergency department.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action in 2021. After the trial court sustained Defendant's demurrer without leave to amend, Plaintiff appealed. The Fifth District reversed the trial court. The California Supreme Court granted review, and after issuing its decision in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 273 (Capito), transferred this case back to the Fifth District with directions to vacate its prior opinion and reconsider the matter in light of Capito.
On remand, the Fifth District held that Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent they are premised on a pre-treatment duty to disclose EMS fees. The Fifth District also concluded that Plaintiff otherwise stated a valid, contract-based declaratory relief claim and should be permitted leave to amend to plead breach of contract and post-treatment UCL/CLRA theories within the parameters stated. The remittitur issued on July 23, 2025.
Following remittitur, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on August 15, 2025. Defendant then demurred to the breach of contract, UCL, and CLRA causes of action. After oral argument, the Court took the demurrer under submission. The Court ultimately overruled the demurrer.