VEGA, GLORIA vs US RENAL CARE INC

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 25, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-005650 - LOPEZ, RAFAEL, J vs NGB CONSTRUCTION INC - Plaintiff's Motion to compel Defendant's Compliance with the Belaire-West Notice Process and Production of Class Contact Information; Request for Sanctions - DENIED as moot. Monetary sanctions are ordered jointly and severally against Defendant and counsel in the amount of $2,560.

Both parties agree that the motion to compel is moot because Defendant produced the required contact information for all putative class members one day after Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff argues that sanctions should be awarded because Defendant produced the information only after the motion to compel was filed. "The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030.)

Here, Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding approval of the Belaire-West Notice at least three times between March 27, 2026, and June 9, 2026. On June 12, 2026, Defendant confirmed it had no revisions to the Belaire-West Notice. Plaintiff subsequently requested the class member information on June 13, 2026, June 16, 2026, and June 25, 2026. In addition, the settlement administrator sent at least three emails asking when the class member information would be provided. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's emails or the settlement administrator's emails. On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed in the instant motion. One day later, Defendant produced the information.

Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees for 5.8 hours billed at a rate of $581 per hour in connection with the instant motion together with the filing fee of $60.00, for a total amount of $3,429.80. Despite multiple follow-ups from Plaintiff, Defendant did not produce the class member information until Plaintiff filed its motion to compel. Defendant could have taken action earlier to assemble the information. The Court finds sanctions are warranted in this case and sets them at 5 hours at $500 plus $60 in filing fees. The Court is well aware that Plaintiff lacks clean hands on timeliness issues in this case. Nonetheless, the delays here, especially given the lack of contact and lack of information on the time required to assemble the information, are not excusable.

Monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,560.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are issued. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Melmed Law Group, P.C., within 20 days. Moving party to submit a proposed order within 5 court days that comports with this ruling.

CV-25-012288 - VEGA, GLORIA vs US RENAL CARE INC - a) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED with leave to amend; b) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - GRANTED with leave to amend.

a) Preliminarily, the demurrer fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference." Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the delivery of a written communication sent to Plaintiff via email on May 19, 2026. Instead of responding with a time to meet and confer, Plaintiff responded via email merely requesting that the hearing be set after July 3, 2026. (Declaration of Lyly K.

Tran, P.P. 2-3.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

The Court nonetheless reaches the merits. In this case, Defendant, a dialysis provider, is alleged to have failed to take precautions for Plaintiff, who was at risk for a fall, did fall, and suffered injury. One threshold issue is whether the episodic nature of the dialysis treatment is sufficient under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et.seq. is the type of custodial care envisioned by the code. Plaintiff asserts that because Defendant took steps to avoid the fall risk, it was assessing Plaintiff's basic needs.

But under Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4 th 148, there must be a robust caretaking component. Here, the alleged caretaking appears to be solely the fall risk abatement efforts. As Defendant observes, in Oroville Hospital v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5 th 382, (a case that had reached the summary judgment stage) even in-home wound care is insufficient caretaking to reach the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act's ambit.

Defendant also raises insufficient evidence of a managing agent's ratification. At the pleading stage, Plaintiff is necessarily disadvantaged by her inferior knowledge. Nonetheless, Plaintiff's citation to Allied Mutual Ins. Co. v. Webb (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 th 1190 is unhelpful; in that case ratification was found not to have happened and not to be possible as the wrongful event had already occurred. Plaintiff's assertions on ratification are speculative.

Leave to Amend The Court is skeptical that the defects can be repaired. Nonetheless, leave to amend is generally granted and it is not clear-cut that leave to amend is not possible. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 15 days.

b) The Motion to Strike is GRANTED with leave to amend for largely the same reasons as above. Further, allegations of unfair or deceptive practices are insufficient.

CV-26-002154 - WRIGHT, SHANNA vs SODHI, JAKRUN S - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents - GRANTED.

a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 6, and 10 and DENIED in part as to Special Interrogatory No.

11. Defendants shall serve further responses which are code-compliant no later than September 10, 2026. Each response shall include a statement that Defendants have made "a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.2030.220.)

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in person, by video, or teleconference. "A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040.) Here, Plaintiff initially sent written correspondence to Defendants outlining purported deficiencies with Defendants discovery responses and requesting to meet and confer.

In response, Defendants served amended responses. Unsatisfied with the amended responses, Plaintiff avers that she subsequently emailed Defendants prior to filing the motion to compel and offered to confer by telephone, but Defendants stated that it could not respond because there was a pending demurrer. The Court finds Plaintiff's efforts constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer.

Interrogatory Nos. 1-3 seek information concerning the identification of persons who participated in Plaintiff's representation, their roles, and a description of the work performed by two specific Defendants. Defendants generally refuse to provide substantive responses, instead stating either that their billing program does not track all users or that billing records have been provided but are incomplete. Defendants are not relieved from responding to the interrogatories simply because records are incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.220 ["If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible."].) The same is true for