Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings; Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC's Joinder to Kellermeyer Bergensons Services LLC's and Chio Saechao's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings; Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 08, 2026 The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-001951 - HERNANDEZ, KEIRA vs VALLEY HOME JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - DROPPED at the request for moving party Oakdale Irrigation District, who was dismissed from the lawsuit on June 30, 2026.
CV-25-003678 - JOSEPH, BRADLEY BRICK vs SANDHU, NARENDER KAUR - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay all fees for any person who needs to be redeposed and Defendant may seek attorney fees for additional time spent due to the lateness of the amendment.
California maintains a strong policy favoring amendment of pleadings and leave to amend should be liberally granted absent a showing of substantial prejudice, unreasonable delay causing prejudice, or clear futility. Plaintiff seeks to add employment-related causes of action arising from the same employment relationship, workplace injury, and post-injury events that form the basis of the existing action. Plaintiff contends that additional discovery obtained during the litigation revealed facts supporting FEHA and Labor Code claims not asserted in the original complaint.
Plaintiff's showing regarding diligence is weak. Many of the facts supporting the proposed employment claims - including the alleged misclassification, wage practices, accommodation requests, and termination - were known to Plaintiff before the motion was filed. Further, Plaintiff relies heavily on an assertion that discovery responses received on April 6, 2026, established Defendants employed five or more employees, yet the referenced discovery responses were not submitted with the motion. Nevertheless, delay alone is generally insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend. P&D Consultants Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4 th 1332 does not lead to a different conclusion; in that case the request was made after the trial readiness conference. The relevant inquiry is whether Defendants have demonstrated substantial prejudice
Most of the prejudice cited is to the substantial expansion and recharacterizing of the case, but this is the nature of the allegations rather than through delay. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 by submitting a proposed amended pleading and a supporting declaration addressing the effect of the amendment, the reasons amendment is sought, when the allegedly supporting facts were discovered, and why amendment was not sought earlier.
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 expressly does not determine the legal sufficiency of the proposed causes of action. Defendant cites to rules regarding futility, but does not argue them with any specificity. Those issues may be addressed through demurrer, motion to strike, or other responsive pleadings. The Court's ruling is limited to whether Plaintiff should be permitted to file the proposed amended pleading. Considering the policy favoring amendment and the absence of a sufficient showing of prejudice, the motion is GRANTED. Whether this is a good policy or not is a matter left to the legislature.
Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of service of the order. Defendants shall respond within the time permitted by law. Under section 473, the Court can make equitable orders, and does so, ordering Plaintiff to pay all deposition fees for any person who must be redeposed based on the change in circumstances, and permitting Defendant to seek attorney fees from this Court for additional time spent due to the delay. (This does not include all work on the new causes of action, but rather the amount caused by the delay.)
CV-26-000086 - BRADFORD, PATTI vs KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED. b) Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC's Joinder to Kellermeyer Bergensons Services LLC's and Chio Saechao's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED. c) Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED
a) GRANTED. Plaintiff's objections: To Amick Declaration: OVERRULED OVERRULED. SUSTAINED OVERRULED OVERRULED. To Bradford Declaration: All OVERRULED. Defendants have met their burden of establishing the existence of a written arbitration agreement executed by Plaintiff on October 12, 2021. Plaintiff does not dispute that she electronically signed the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate as part of the onboarding process. Accordingly, the Court finds a valid arbitration agreement was formed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.2; Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)
The Court further finds that Plaintiff's claims fall within the broad scope of the agreement. The agreement expressly encompasses employment-related disputes, including claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage-and-hour violations, wrongful termination, and related statutory causes of action. The claims alleged in the Complaint arise from Plaintiff's employment relationship and are therefore subject to the arbitration provision.
The agreement also contains a delegation clause providing that the arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation, applicability, validity, and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. The Court finds the delegation language is sufficiently clear and unmistakable to satisfy the standards set forth in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, and Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231. The Court therefore does not reach the merits of the unconscionability argument.
b) GRANTED. Although Amazon is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, the Court finds Amazon has established two independent grounds permitting enforcement of the agreement. First, the arbitration agreement expressly provides that KBS customers at whose facilities employees perform work are intended third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. The evidence establishes Plaintiff worked at an Amazon facility pursuant to KBS's contractual relationship with Amazon. The Court therefore finds Amazon qualifies as an intended third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement. (Ronay Family Limited Partnership v. Tweed (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 830, 838-839.)
Second, Plaintiff's claims against Amazon are predicated upon allegations that Amazon and KBS jointly employed Plaintiff and jointly participated in the acts giving rise to liability. The Complaint repeatedly alleges Amazon and KBS exercised shared authority over Plaintiff's employment and acted collectively with respect to the conduct challenged in this action. Under these circumstances, equitable estoppel principles permit Amazon to enforce the arbitration agreement. (Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782, 786-788; Goldman v. KPMG LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 219-221.) The Court therefore finds Plaintiff's claims against Amazon are subject to the same arbitration agreement governing Plaintiff's claims against KBS and Saechao. Amazon's Joinder is GRANTED.
c) GRANTED. Because the Court is granting the Motion to Compel Arbitration, a stay of this action is required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. Section 1281.4 provides that when a court orders arbitration of a controversy that is an issue involved in a pending action, the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. The stay is mandatory. (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192.) The Court finds that all claims asserted in the Complaint are subject to arbitration and that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the litigation to proceed simultaneously with arbitration. Accordingly, the action is stayed in its entirety pending completion of arbitration and issuance of an arbitration award.
The August 3, 2026 Case Management Conference is vacated and a Case Status Review is set for December 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. The Court expects progress to be made by that time.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-23-005137 - UPPER QUINTO LAND & CATTLE COMPANY LLC vs ROMERO RANCH LLC - Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction - DENIED. On June 11, 2026, Defendant submitted a motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. Plaintiff opposed and Defendant replied.
Plaintiff is a hunting and fishing organization comprised of individual members. At least three of Plaintiff's properties are surrounded by Defendant's property and thus Plaintiff's members must travel across Defendant's property to reach Plaintiff's properties. Previously, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant from blocking Plaintiff and its members from traveling over Defendant's property to access Plaintiff's properties. The Court granted the injunction with conditions.
Now, Defendant moves to dissolve the preliminary injunction based on two alleged incidents. First, an individual who is also a member of Plaintiff's organization traveled over Defendant's property to reach his own private real property. Second, unidentified individuals trespassed and allegedly committed acts of vandalism.
"In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 533.)
Here, Defendant has not satisfied any of the requirements for dissolving the preliminary injunction. Defendant seeks to prevent a private individual from accessing his own private land. Even though such individual also happens to be a member of Plaintiff's hunting and fishing organization, such an act does not amount to a material change in fact or law. Nor does it establish that the ends of justice would be served by dissolving the injunction because the alleged incidents are divorced from the purpose of the injunction. The requested relief does not flow from the alleged incidents. Defendant's cursory request for contempt in reply is not properly before the Court. In any event, the Court is unconvinced a motion for contempt would be successful on the facts presented to date. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dissolve preliminary injunction is DENIED.
CV-25-009644 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VASQUEZ, JUAN P - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance - GRANTED, and unopposed. On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and for nonappearance. Plaintiff's notice of motion states that Plaintiff submits the motion on the moving papers pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1304(c) and will not appear at the hearing in open court. The motion is unopposed.