Respondent Giannelli Law Firm's Notice of Demurrer
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 5, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-26-004831 - CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE vs DIAZREYES, BRAULIO EDIBERTO - Petitioner's Motion for Order Compelling Claimant Anthony Josue Rivera's Further Verified Response to Respondent Petitioner CSAA's Form Interrogatories, Set One in Uninsured Motorist Matter [CCP Section 2031.310, Insurance Code Section 11580.2] - DROPPED by the moving party.
CV-26-004874 - ANHAR, MICHAEL N vs CITY OF TURLOCK - Petitioner's Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court intends to set a briefing schedule.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-24-009765 - ZUNIGA, GERARDO RAMIREZ vs JUMENT LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Order Appointing Successor in Interest and Leave to File First Amended Complaint - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On July 9, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion for order appointing successor in interest and for leave to file a first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 377.010, et seq. The motion is unopposed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with the motion.
CV-25-010017 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs GONZALES, EDWARD J - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed 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 December 15, 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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CV-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - CONTINUED to August 19, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
On July 14, 2026, Attorney Sam Dehbozorgi filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Protech Phone Repair Inc. The motion is unopposed. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order. "The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)
The unopposed motion is CONTINUED to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Attorney Dehbozorgi to file a proposed order at least five court days before the hearing.
PR-26-000530 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MANOUCH AZAD REVOCABLE TRUST - Respondent Giannelli Law Firm's Notice of Demurrer to Petitioner's Petition to Determine Validity of Trust Amendments; to Compel an Accounting; to Remove Trustees and Appoint Successor Trustee; to Impose Constructive Trust; for Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duty; for Elder Financial Abuse; and for Other Relief - DROPPED as MOOT.
On June 30, 2026, Moving Party Gianelli Law Firm (legally doing business as Gianelli, Friedman, Jeffries & McKernan) filed this demurrer. On July 13, 2026, Petitioner submitted a request for dismissal of the law firm from the action. The request for dismissal was entered the same day. Consequently, Moving Party's demurrer is MOOT, and the hearing on the demurrer is DROPPED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-004706 -CID, HILMER DEL 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 October 2, 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. The Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer as to such issues are undertaken in good faith.
Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by September 21, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve. The Court strongly encourages the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another. Should counsel for the parties be unable to reach a reasonable compromise of any of the issues presented by the instant motion, the Court may require personal appearances at the time of the continued hearing to further address the issues herein.
CV-25-005440 - MARTIN, STEVEN CURTIS vs DHILLON, SARBIJT SINGH - Defendant's General, or in the Alternative Special Demurrer, to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
This action arises from a July 1, 2023, motor vehicle collision. The original complaint was filed June 4, 2025, in the name of Steven Curtis Martin. Judicially noticed materials establish that Steven Martin died on February 10, 2025, approximately four months before the complaint was filed. The court previously sustained a demurrer to the original complaint with leave to amend. The First Amended Complaint was thereafter filed by Anita Marie Martin as successor-in-interest.
The threshold issue is whether a complaint filed in the name of a deceased person may serve as the basis for a later amendment adding a successor-in-interest after expiration of the applicable limitations period. The court concludes it may not. A deceased person lacks legal existence and cannot commence litigation. Unlike the cases relied upon by plaintiff, this is not a situation in which a living plaintiff filed suit in an incorrect capacity or where the real party in interest was later substituted into an existing action. Rather, the original complaint was filed in the name of a person who had already died. As a result, no valid action was commenced on June 4, 2025.
The court finds Coats v. K-Mart Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 961 persuasive. There, the court declined to apply the relation-back doctrine where the plaintiff lacked authority to sue when the action was initiated. Here, the defect is even more fundamental, because the named plaintiff was deceased before suit was filed. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) therefore has no valid pleading to which it may relate back.
The court acknowledges plaintiff's showing that counsel apparently acted in good faith and was unaware of Steven Martin's death when suit was filed. The court further acknowledges counsel's explanation that locating Anita Martin was complicated by the death certificate's indication that decedent had never married. However, good faith alone cannot create a viable action where none existed. Lack of prejudice to defendants likewise does not overcome the statutory limitations bar.