WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SODHI, JAKRUN S

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 4, 2026

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

CV-23-002213 -LEGGETT, JANAE vs KEMP, HIRAM - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion to Tax Costs - DENIED.

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff's memorandum reiterates arguments that were previously before the Court, such as arguing that deposition costs were not reasonably necessary and that Plaintiff is experiencing financial hardship. Plaintiff does not present "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" warranting modification of the May 12, 2026 Order on Motion to Tax Costs. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008.) Further filings attempting to relitigate the same issues are likely to result in a vexatious litigant finding.

CV-26-000861 - CASTRO, VINCENT vs ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC - Defendant Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration of Individual and Individual Paga Claims, Strike Putative Class Claims, and Stay Non-Individual Paga Claims Pending Arbitration - HEARING REQUIRED.

Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice of the state cases is denied as the Court cannot consider them for any purpose. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4 th 443, 447 fn. 2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Fisher & Phillips LLP is now on actual notice of this rule.

The Request for Judicial Notice in the Reply is likely to be granted, and the use of federal cases at every level is permissible as persuasive authority. Nonetheless, before considering these rulings, Plaintiff has a right to differentiate the cases and to cite to any other citable (federal or published state) cases to assist the Court. (See Evidence Code Sec. 452.)

CV-26-002154 - WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SODHI, JAKRUN S - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint-- SUSTAINED with leave to amend in part, OVERRULED in part; b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and Emotional Distress and Case of Action for Fraud - GRANTED with leave to amend.

a-b) The Court notes that the current pleadings do not appear to articulate recoverable damages in any case other than in the civil case CV-24-699.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendants' unopposed request for judicial notice of the complaint in the instant action is DENIED as moot; it is unnecessary for the Court to take judicial notice of filings in the instant case. Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice of the Fee Arbitration Findings and Award filed on January 28, 2026, in Case No. 25-A-132 before the State Bar of California, Mandatory Fee Arbitration Program is GRANTED solely for the fact of the ruling and not for the factual findings. . Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice of three records from Case No. CV-24- 000699 in Stanislaus County Superior Court, entitled Shanna Wright v. Debbra Schlicht, is GRANTED.

First cause of action for legal malpractice

"To state a cause of action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must plead '(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence.' " (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 179.) "To show damages proximately caused by the breach, the plaintiff must allege facts establishing that, ' but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.' " (Ibid.)

Here, the First Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action for legal malpractice and is not uncertain. The First Amended Complaint pleads a duty owed by Defendants as legal counsel; that Defendants breach their duty by missing court deadlines; that Defendants' actions caused her to suffer damages; and that Plaintiff suffered damages, including adverse rulings and sanctions in the form of an attorney's fee award. At this stage, Plaintiff is required only to plead facts showing that it is more likely than not Plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result. (Charnay, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at 180.)

The First Amended Complaint does so by pleading Plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result with respect to the sanctions if deadlines were not missed. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action. At the pleading stage, Plaintiff need not relitigate the entire case. Either the failure to oppose the anti-SLAPP motion or the bringing of a case in which no credible opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion could be made is actionable. "Settle and sue," cases are, at trial, determined by a preponderance of the evidence standard. (Masellis v.

Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen (2020) 50 Cal.App.5 th 1077.) The demurrer to the first cause of cation for legal malpractice is OVERRULED.

Second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty

"To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages." (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182.) The First Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and is not uncertain. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants concealed procedural failures which resulted in damages. The allegations are sufficient at this early stage of the case. The demurrer to the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is OVERRULED.

Third cause of action for breach of contract

In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that the existence of a contract, that Plaintiff performed by paying, that Defendants breached their contract by failing to perform legal services competently, and that Plaintiff suffered damages due to the breach. The allegations are not uncertain. Defendant argues that the breach of contract cause of action is barred by res judicata because there was a prior arbitration between the parties. As to fees, the matter has been determined by the arbitrator. As to other damages, the matter has not been determined. The demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of contract is OVERRULED.

Fourth cause of action for fraud and punitive damages

The First Amended Complaint adequately pleads the elements of a fraud cause of action. As to specificity, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sodhi knowingly made misrepresentations to Plaintiff regarding the status of her case, including for example, concerning Defendants' failure to timely respond to a dispositive motion. Plaintiff's allegations meet the requirement of specificity to plead fraud. But they are unsupported or insufficiently supported by the judicially noticeable case CV-24-699 in which Plaintiff did in fact have the ruling reversed on the anti-SLAPP issue.

Representations that no irreparable harm had occurred appear to be true. Allegations for fraud must be pled with specificity. Allegations that some discovery was not conducted that was desired by Plaintiff is insufficient. The inclusion of the statement that "no irreparable harm had occurred," indicates there was likely some discussion about the missed deadline in which missing the deadline was acknowledged. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraud is SUSTAINED and the motion to strike is MOOT.

The punitive damages request is STRICKEN.

Emotional distress damages

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's emotional distress damages should be dismissed because Plaintiff's injuries are purely economic losses. Under these circumstances Merenda v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4 th 1 controls and everything outside of negligence is insufficiently pled.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff is self-represented and may be able to repair the defects in the pleadings. Plaintiff is given 20 days to file an amended complaint.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-24-001460 - CITIBANK NA vs FIGUEROA, MONICA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deem Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.

On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be deemed admitted. There is no opposition on file. "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 served by mail its first set of requests for admissions on defendant on October 20, 2025, and received no response. Plaintiff requests that the truth of all specified facts in the requests for admission 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.

CV-25-012482 - KOURY, ANITA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - a) Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint- DENIED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Plaintiffs, Request for Sanctions of $750.00 - GRANTED in part, DENIED in part.

a) For the reasons set forth below, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. On May 20, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiffs' third and fourth causes of action of the First Amended Complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs opposed and Defendant replied.

Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment

"The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if the concealed or suppressed fact was known; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the material fact." (Rattagan v.

Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40.) "The requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written." (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

Pleading fraud with specificity

Defendant argues that the fraudulent concealment cause of action does not satisfy the requisite specificity required to plead fraud. "There are certain exceptions to the particularity requirement." (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 disapproved on another ground by Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310.) " 'Less specificity is required when 'it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.' ' " (Ibid.)

Here, the FAC satisfies the requirement of specificity to state a fraudulent concealment action. Courts have explained that the requirement of specificity in fraud actions "is intended to apply to affirmative misrepresentations" rather than concealment or nondisclosure. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 18, 2009) .) The FAC alleges that Ford--through at least its marketing materials, salespersons, and repair representatives--concealed and/or failed to disclose material information regarding known defects with the