Defendant Hydration Source, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication
Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-005384 - BOWERS, LATONA R vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION - a) Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, or Alternatively, for Immediate Expungement- GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal - DENIED.
a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the probable validity of her real property claims at this post-judgment stage, i.e., the Court does not conclude that the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the judgment on appeal. (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order of expungement herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 405.32.) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 405.38. As no details with regard to the reasonable amount of such an award have been provided at this juncture, Defendant may file a separate motion in that regard.
b) The Court finds that the subject proceedings are not automatically stayed by the pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 916(a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Further, the Court declines to exercise discretion to impose a stay in this instance.
CV-25-006013 - ARENA FUNDING SOURCE vs BIRMINGHAM, THERESA C - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal - DENIED. The mandatory provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(b) are not applicable herein, as the dismissal was voluntarily obtained and did not result from a situation akin to a default. (See, e.g. Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5 th 166, 175; Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4 th 259.) Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether relief is appropriate under the discretionary provisions of the statute.
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?”
UD-24-000777 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs WANGUN, GWEN - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 7-31-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that Mr. Rowe's declaration references "Exhibit A" (his billing statement relative to this matter), but the referenced exhibit is missing from the Court's file. In addition, Defendant's opposition argues that the exhibit was not provided for her review either. Therefore, the Court has determined to continue the hearing, as above, so that the subject document can be provided to the Court and to Defendant for review before the hearing.
Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a supplemental declaration attaching the missing document and shall serve the same on Defendant no later than 6-26-26. The parties may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs relative to the instant motion within the statutory time period as calculated from the continued hearing date.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-005362 - SMITH, RALPH vs HYDRATION SOURCE LLC - Defendant Hydration Source, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - DENIED. As a preliminary matter the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff's late filed Opposition to this motion, based on the strong judicial policy of addressing cases on their merits rather than on procedural bases, and the drastic nature of a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, Defendant did not demonstrate any prejudice occasioned by said late filing. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1300 (d); Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640); Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., (1983)146 Cal. App. 3d 29, 1). Plaintiff's Counsel is, however, required to ensure future compliance with statutory filing deadlines.
Similarly, the Court notes Plaintiff's non-compliance with the minimum one and a half line spacing of CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 2.108(1) and admonishes Plaintiff's Counsel against a repeat occurrence of said conduct. The Court finds after reviewing the evidence and testimony adduced that triable issues of the material fact exist as to all four of Plaintiff's Causes of Action herein for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (FEHA). Specifically, as to Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Discrimination, the Court concludes that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant had a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff's race, whether such animus was a substantial motivating factor in Defendant's treatment of Plaintiff, as to whether Defendant's proffered basis for Plaintiff's termination is pretextual, and as to the existence of a causal nexus between Defendant's claimed discipline and protected activity. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23,;Glovak Depo.
Plaintiff's Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff's Depo, Exh. 2 at p. 7 and p. 27,; Plaintiff's declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant's SSUMF's 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant's declaration paragraphs11-13, 15- Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 437c (b)(2); McCaskey v. California State Auto. Assn., (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 947, Arnold v. Dignity Health, (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 412; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, review filed, review denied; Dinslage v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, (2016) 5 Cal.
App. 5th 368;” Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 304 88 Cal.App.5th 712; Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908;” McKinney v. American Airlines, Inc., C.D.Cal.2009, 641 F.Supp.2d 962; Brown v Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 60 Cal. App. 5th 1092)
As to Plaintiff's Second and Fourth Causes of Action for Retaliation, triable issues of material fact exist regarding whether Plaintiff's report of October 2020 and of March 2021 constitute protected activity,whether Defendant engaged in a continuous retaliatory course of conduct against Plaintiff, whether the discipline against Plaintiff was retaliatory or legitimate and whether Plaintiff's conduct constitutes intervening misconduct sufficient to sever any causal connection. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo.
Plaintiff's Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff's Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff's declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant's SSUMF's 28-34, 38-45, 46-91; Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant's declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Civ Proc. Code Sec. 437c (b)(2); Cal.Gov. Code Sec. 12940(h); Kelley v. The Conco Companies, (2011)196 Cal. App. 4th 191; Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570; McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Assn., (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 283; Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., (2016) 2 Cal.
App. 5th 1028).
As to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Harassment, triable issues of material exist as to whether the alleged violating conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and whether it unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance. (Defendants SUMFs 14-23;Glovak Depo. Plaintiff's Exh. 1 at pp. 25-28; Plaintiff's Depo, Exh. 2 at pp. 7 and. 27; Plaintiff's declaration Exh. 12, p.2 para 9, Defendant's SSUMF's 28-34, 38-45, 46-91, Glovak, Depo, 46-73; Defendant's declaration paragraphs 11-13 and 8-33; Etter v. Veriflo Corp., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457; Govt. Code Sec.12940 (j); Kelley v. The Conco Companies (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191; Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office (2024) 16 Cal. 5 th 611).
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication is also denied as to issues One to Eight consistent with the above rulings.. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 437(c); Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1071; Zaragoza v. Adam, (2025), 109 Cal. App. 5th 113, review denied (June 11, 2025); Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Murphy v. Pina, (2025)115 Cal. App. 5th 305).
Evidentiary Objections: Defendant's Objection Number 1 to Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 (deposition excerpts): Overruled in part; sustained in part as to legal conclusions and speculation. Defendant's Objection Numbers 2-7 to deposition excerpts on specified topics: Overruled to the extent based on personal knowledge; sustained as to hearsay/speculation lacking foundation. . Defendant's Objections Numbers 8-11 to Powell declaration: Sustained as to legal conclusions and portions lacking case-specific foundation; otherwise overruled to limited HR-practices opinions properly grounded. Defendant's Objections to Smith declaration: Overruled as to personal-knowledge facts; sustained as to hearsay/speculation/legal conclusions.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
UD-26-000408 - ARCHWAY EAH LL LP vs MORALES, MARICELA - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED.