IN THE MATTER OF THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST

"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.

A neutral inspection of the property shall be conducted to assess structural conditions, termite issues, HVAC condition, and other material maintenance concerns. The parties shall cooperate with reasonable inspection requests and provide access to the property upon reasonable notice. The Court will hear argument regarding whether such preservation measures are appropriate and whether any additional or modified protective orders are necessary pending final resolution of the trust dispute.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-19-006268 - AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs MARTINEZ, STEVE - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Conditional Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 - GRANTED, and unopposed.

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the stipulation entered between the parties in October 2020, by which they agreed to the Court's retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement herein. Therefore, the motion is granted, the dismissal entered on 10-27-29 is set aside, and judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff's favor for the total amount of $4,739.00, which represents the principal amount of $10,622.50, less $6,373.50 in payments credited to the account, plus total court costs of $490.00. The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-23-001773 - TRAVIS, TYEISHA vs COMMUNITY HOSPICE INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards - HEARING REQUIRED.

Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion. It appears that proper notice to the settlement class has been given in compliance with the law and as required by the Court's order granting preliminary approval. Having considered the unopposed motion herein and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civil Code Sec.1781; Code Civ. Proc. Sec.382; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769.)

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as set forth in the motion and supporting papers, as follows:

Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $8,750 Payment to Class Representatives: $20,000 PAGA allocation to LWDA (75%) and class members (25%): $50,000 Class Counsel's attorney's fees: $350,500 Class Counsel's costs: $44,304.85

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for April 15, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 to confirm full administration of the settlement. Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than 5 court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.

At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel shall submit a revised proposed order incorporating the above revisions for the Court's signature.

CV-24-002665 - GERGEES, DORIS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(D) - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to September 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The Court notes that counsel herein has substantial experience with these types of matters and is presumably well-acquainted with the law governing the determination of reasonable fees and expenses pursuant to the statute. Nevertheless, these types of fee disputes are commonplace and appear to reflect a default pattern of refusing to compromise in favor of "trying their luck" before the court, thus wasting judicial resources in the hopes of obtaining a ruling favoring their side.