IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST

reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008.)

"If the motion is opposed by a defendant or occupant within 30 days of service, the court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hearing on the motion, if the court finds each of the following: (A) The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain. (B) The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article. (C) There is an overriding need for the plaintiff to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited. (D) The hardship that the plaintiff will suffer if possession is denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the defendant or occupant that would be caused by the granting of the order of possession." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1255.410(d)(2).)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not satisfy the "overriding need" or "substantial hardship" elements required for prejudgment possession under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410(d)(2).

The parties appear to be in agreement that the timeline of the project as issue in this matter has been extended. Plaintiff admits that the certification deadline was moved to January 19, 2027, and thus requests that the effective date of the Court's previous order be extended to November 30, 2026. The change in timeline does not alter the Court's previous findings regarding overriding need, substantial hardship, or the balance of hardships. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1255.410(d)(2).) It merely changes the date by which possession is required.

Defendant's argument regarding an "urgent" overriding need is not persuasive. A showing of urgency is required for an emergency order of possession that seeks possession earlier than permitted under the notice requirements because of, e.g., "a utility's urgent need to protect the public's health and safety[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1255.410(e)(1); Israni v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 621, 632 ["If the condemning authority wishes to obtain possession earlier than permitted under the 30 or 90-day notice requirements, it must make an additional showing that it has an urgent need for possession[.]"].) That is unlike the situation here since Plaintiff is not seeking to obtain possession before the required 30 day notice period on an emergency basis under subdivision (e)(1).

Defendants' cite to Israni is inapposite because that case discusses "an ex parte application . . . for an [order of immediate possession] authorizing [Plaintiff] to take possession of the Property . . . three days after notice of the order is served[.]" (Israni v. Superior Court, supra 88 Cal.App.4th at 629.)

In addition, Defendants quotation of section 1255.420 is taken out of context regarding timing and it is also misplaced. That section was repealed in 2006 by Senate Bill 1210, Section 4. (2006 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 594 (S.B. 1210, SEC. 4) (WEST).)

CV-26-004906 - FLORY, RYAN T vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA - Defendant's Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration - DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America's motion to compel binding arbitration appears premature. The instant case is a lemon law action filed after January 1, 2025. Therefore, it appears the action is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. Section 871.26 requires, inter alia, that "[w]ithin 90 days after filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall schedule a mediation to occur within 150 days after filing of the answer or other responsive pleading with a court-appointed or private mediator." Except for initial disclosures and the initial depositions, "all other discovery shall be stayed until mediation is concluded." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant may re-file its motion to compel after mediation is concluded.

PR-26-000073 - IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - CONTINUED to August 26, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to August 26, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related probate discovery motion on calendar that day.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-22-001828 - LONGORIA, OSCAR vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant's Motion to Compel Lupe Longoria to Submit an IME - DROPPED. Defendant has failed to file or serve the moving papers.

CV-25-003899 - ISAAK, LIAM vs GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Set One Special Interrogatories - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Plaintiff Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Set One Requests for Production of Documents - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court finds the parties' meet-and-confer efforts to be insufficient under the circumstances presented herein. Specifically, the Court notes the absence of any further meet-and-confer efforts after Defendant's service of further responses to the subject discovery. Further, the Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve or substantially narrow the subject issues if genuine efforts to meet and confer 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 October 9, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

The Court believes the issues herein are amenable to informal resolution. Toward that end, the parties are reminded that discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) Therefore, the Court expects the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another and to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

CV-25-008202 - RUIZ, VICTORIA REYNA MENDOZA vs MERLIN PLASTICS CALIFORNIA INC - Defendants and Cross-Complainants Merlin Plastics California, Inc. and Peninsula Plastics Recycling, Inc.'s Motion for Good Faith Settlement - DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 877.6(b) contemplates the submission of evidentiary support for the information asserted in the instant motion, and moving defendants have failed to submit a supporting declaration or other evidence herein.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-23-004243 - SOLIZ, ANGEL vs DUST BOWL BREWING CO LLC - Compliance Hearing - CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

The Court has reviewed the declaration of Nicole Bench, Case Manager for ILYM Group, Inc., concerning administration of the class action settlement. The declaration establishes that settlement funds have been distributed pursuant to the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment entered February 3, 2026. The declaration further establishes that settlement checks were issued on March 25, 2026, and that settlement class members have until September 21, 2026, to negotiate those checks. As of August 11, 2026, 152 checks totaling $61,637.09 remained outstanding. Under the Final Approval Order and Judgment, any funds represented by uncashed checks are to be distributed to the Court-approved cy pres recipient, Jessica's House.

The Court finds that a final accounting cannot yet be completed because the check-cashing period has not expired. The amount of residual funds, if any, remains unknown, and no cy pres distribution has yet occurred. Good cause therefore exists to continue the compliance hearing.

Accordingly: 1. The final accounting hearing is CONTINUED to October 27, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.