WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VASQUEZ, JUAN P

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.

"If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.)

"The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff's declaration states that Plaintiff propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Plaintiff requests that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified be deemed admitted. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with its motion.

PR-25-000754 - IN THE MATTER OF THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Appoint Receiver - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court intends to DENY Petitioner Tawna Veniot's unopposed Motion to Appoint Receiver WITHOUT PREJUDICE at this time.

Petitioner Tawna Veniot moves for appointment of a receiver to take possession of the real property located at 1921 Santina Court, Modesto, California, evict occupants, prepare the property for sale, market the property, and sell the property pending resolution of the parties' competing claims concerning trusteeship and ownership. The motion was properly served on respondents Dana Garth and Richard Pomares. They have not filed any opposition.

The Court recognizes that it possesses authority to appoint a receiver in an appropriate trust proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 564 and Probate Code section 15642(e). However, receivership is an extraordinary remedy and should be employed only where necessary to preserve property and where less drastic remedies are inadequate.

The present record reflects a genuine dispute concerning the identity of the lawful successor trustee and the parties' respective rights regarding the subject property. The record further contains evidence suggesting the property may require maintenance and repairs. Petitioner relies in substantial part upon allegations contained in respondents' filings concerning termite damage, HVAC issues, and other deferred maintenance concerns.

At present, however, petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence establishing imminent irreparable injury, active dissipation of the property, or circumstances requiring the immediate displacement of occupants and sale of the residence. The Court is also concerned that the requested receivership would grant relief extending well beyond preservation of the asset and could effectively alter possession and control of the property before resolution of the underlying trust dispute.

Additionally, the record suggests the trust may lack liquid assets. The Court notes that appointment of a receiver, standing alone, does not solve an insolvency problem. A receiver is not a source of funding and may instead create additional administrative expenses payable from the disputed asset.

Accordingly, the Court is inclined to deny the motion without prejudice and instead consider issuance of narrowly tailored preservation orders designed to maintain the status quo and protect the property pending adjudication of the underlying petitions. The Court wishes to hear from the parties regarding the propriety and scope of the following proposed preservation orders:

No party shall sell, transfer, encumber, lease, refinance, or otherwise dispose of the property without further court order.

The current occupants shall maintain existing utility services reasonably necessary to preserve the property.

The current occupants shall maintain existing homeowner's insurance coverage and provide proof of coverage upon request.

All parties shall refrain from committing waste or permitting avoidable deterioration of the property.