CASTRO, VINCENT vs ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC

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