NEWSON, THAIYANA vs RAV TRANSPORT INC

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 31, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-002950 - CAVALRY SPV I LLC vs CANALS, JOSEPH - Plaintiff's Motion for Setting Aside Dismissal and Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED and unopposed. Defendant was properly served and did not oppose this motion. On its face, the motion appears meritorious

CV-24-006949 - CORTEZ, ROBERTO vs NEWLY WEDS FOODS LLC - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to December 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.

21. The parties are currently in compliance and the next date is to determine if delivery was made to the unclaimed property fund.

CV-25-007444 - SOFAIR, TONY vs SALAZAR, SALVADOR, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED. The alleged breakdown in communication appears not to be with Plaintiff himself.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***

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

CV-23-004326 - WIGGINS, JOSHUA vs COLEMAN, TIMOTHY - Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena of Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner - GRANTED. Preliminarily, the Court notes that Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's counsel's opposing declaration has not been authenticated herein and appears to consist of inadmissible hearsay. In addition, Exhibit 4 likewise appears to consist of inadmissible hearsay and appears subject to exclusion pursuant to the provisions of Evid.

Code Sec. 1152 et seq. Based on the Court's review of the papers herein, as well as the Court's prior ruling denying Plaintiff's motion to compel further deposition testimony from Ms. Garner in August 2024, the Court finds that the subpoena for Ms. Garner's trial testimony is subject to being quashed. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1987.1.) The Court finds that the bulk of the testimony Plaintiff seeks to elicit from Ms. Garner is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the provisions of Evid.

Code Sec. 1152 et seq. Moreover, while the Court recognizes that there is no blanket prohibition in the law against Ms. Garner being called to testify as a witness regarding non-privileged matters in this context, it appears from the evidence presented herein that many, if not all, non-privileged matters contemplated by her testimony would be subject to exclusion on foundational and/or hearsay grounds. Therefore, the Court is unconvinced that Ms. Garner's testimony would carry any probative value herein; furthermore, any potential in that regard is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time and/or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Evid.