| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Sanctions for Misuse of Discovery Process
video conference" before filing a demurrer. They did not.
DESPITE THE DEFICIENCY, THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS Plaintiff asserts that he has agreed to file a First Amended Complaint, but has not done so. The Court cannot tell if an amended complaint will repair the vagueness and other deficiencies in the current complaint. Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-21-005754 - GAVERT, JAMES vs CF MODESTO LLC - Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - HEARING REQUIRED.
CV-25-012174 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs HENRIQUES, JOSEPH K - Defendant's Application for Partial Withdrawal of Funds Pursuant to Stipulation - HEARING REQUIRED.
PR-25-000754 - IN THE MATTER OF THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to May 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to May 20, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Misuse of Discovery Process Against Defendant's and Attorney of Record, Jointly and Severally - DENIED. The Court finds that Plaintiff is attempting to rehash a prior motion which the Court has already considered and in respect of which a ruling has already been issued. (Court's Ruling of 3/12/26). The doctrine of res judicata is not applicable here. (Phillips v. Sprint PCS, (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 758). However, to the extent that the issue now raised in this motion should have been raised in the prior motion in the exercise of due diligence, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior ruling.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. The court notes had the motion been granted, that Plaintiff would have been entitled to his attorney fees. (Mix v. Tumanjan Dev. Corp., (2002)102 Cal. App. 4th 131). Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order within five (5) court days that conforms with this ruling.
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-25-005710 - MIRANDA, MARIO vs PACIFIC SUNRISE ASSOCIATES INC - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - GRANTED, conditionally. The Court finds that Defendant's Motion is untimely brought outside the six-month jurisdictional window. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b); Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal. App 5 th 267; Thompson v. Vallembois (1963), 216 Cal.App.2d 21; Austin v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, (2016); Summit Care-California, Inc. v.
Department of Health Services (1986), 186 Cal.App.3d 1584). Defendant's motion brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b) is therefore barred. The moving party bears the burden of establishing a right to relief under the statute allowing relief from judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”(Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016), 244 Cal.App.4th 918, on remand 2016 WL 6902896). Equitable relief from a default judgment is reserved for exceptional circumstances. (Kramer v.
Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13). A party seeking equitable relief from a default judgment based on extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake must satisfy three elements: (1) a meritorious case; (2) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action; and (3) diligence in seeking to set aside the default once discovered.”(Moghaddam v. Bone (2006), 142 Cal.App.4th 283). Given Defendant's acknowledgment of some indebtedness to Plaintiff, repayment issues, and a willingness to