CORTES, ALEXANDRA MEZA vs SINGH, GURWANT

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 27, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-001208 - MILLER, CRAIG vs DOPP, KLYVE - Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial - CONTINUED to September 2, 2026. The Court apologizes for the delay but requires some additional time.

CV-23-006532 - THOMPSON, SHELDON L vs JAI JALARAM INVESTMENT LLC - Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement - DENIED. The Court agrees with Defendants that the parties settled this matter at the December 15, 2025 mandatory settlement conference. The agreement was then recited in open court.

However, a short few weeks after the agreement was reached, the parties began disputing some of the settlement's major terms, including the method by which the $400,000 payment to Plaintiffs would be calculated and distributed. Plaintiffs contend that the settlement required a $400,000 payment from Defendants' one-half share of the sale proceeds, whereas Defendants initially maintained that the $400,000 payment was to be made "off the top" of the net sale proceeds before division between the parties.

There was no court reporter present at the December 15, 2025 hearing. Thus, there is no official record of the proceedings. At a prior hearing, the Court found that the issues that were contested had been worked out and that my recollection was that Plaintiff was correct on what the agreement was, but was not at all confident in that recollection.

Defendants' later willingness to accept Plaintiffs' interpretation of the disputed method of calculating and distributing the $400,000 is irrelevant to this motion. Plaintiff aptly notes that there were time expectations to compliance, which Defendant breached. Further, the Court's prior finding - that the precise terms of the settlement are not proven - is still the Court's finding. Defendants have also not put the property up for sale. The September 22, 2026 trial date and all related pretrial dates shall remain in effect.

CV-24-001951 - HERNANDEZ, KEIRA vs VALLEY HOME JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Valley Home Joint School District's Special Interrogatories (Set Three); Request for Sanctions - DROPPED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Valley Home Joint School District's Request for Production of Documents (Set Three); Request for Sanctions - DROPPED. a-b) DROPPED.

CV-24-010129 - WILENS, NICOLAS A vs GALLO GLASS COMPANY - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Gallo Glass Company's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - DROPPED; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Gallo Glass Company's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - DROPPED. a-b) DROPPED.

CV-25-007782 - CORTES, ALEXANDRA MEZA vs SINGH, GURWANT - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel re: Lorena Cortes Arellano - DENIED without prejudice. It is unclear to the Court that the clients received appropriate notice of this hearing. The notice of motion initially bore the hearing date of July 1, 2026. That date was crossed out--presumably, by the clerk's office--and replaced with August 20, 2026. However, there is no amended notice of motion or proof of service for such a notice in the court file.

Furthermore, the Court gave notice to Moving Counsel on August 7, 2026, that this hearing was re-set from August 20, 2026, to August 27, 2026. But again, there is no corresponding proof of service for an amended notice of hearing to the clients.

Furthermore, under rule 3.1362(d) and (e) of the California Rules of Court, a proposed order must be served and lodged with the Court at the time the moving papers are filed. Here, the proposed order was lodged six days after the moving papers were filed. Moreover, the proposed order submitted on that date bears the wrong client name--Plaintiff Alexandra Meza Cortes instead of Plaintiff Lorena Cortes Arellano.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-24-005667 - ROGERS, MELINDA vs WEIDNER, JEFFREY CHARLES - Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed. Plaintiff failed to comply with discovery and has failed to comply with Court orders regarding said discovery. Plaintiff's conduct amounts to a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010.) Thus, the Court may issue "[a]n order dismissing the action . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with discovery orders. Plaintiff has also failed to appear. Lesser sanctions have proven ineffective. Plaintiff's conduct supports an inference of willfulness. Accordingly, Defendant's unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant to submit a revised proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

CV-26-006632 - STRICKLAND, MARK A vs GOMEZ, CHARLOTTE R - Petitioner's Petition for Court Order to Release and Return of the Cremated Remains of a Decedent - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court is inclined to DISMISS the petition. It does not appear that the Health and Safety Code authorizes such a petition or that the Court has the authority to grant the requested relief.

On July 6, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking an order directing Respondent Charlotte R. Gomez to the return of the cremated remains of Petitioner's spouse, Mrs. Shirely Strickland. On August 17, 2026, Respondent filed a General Denial but there is no opposition on file.

Petitioner, as the surviving spouse, has the right to control the remains of the decedent. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 7100(a)(2).) However, the Petition states that there was a prior small claims case in which Respondent stated that she does not know the location of the remains. More importantly, the Court does not appear to have the authority to award the requested relief. Health and Safety Code, section 7105 excludes a surviving spouse from the list of persons who may bring a petition. Also, it provides for an order determining who will have control among other persons having equal rights to control the disposition and directing that person to make interment of the remains. (Health & Saf.

Code, Sec. 7105.) The code does not provide authority for a Superior Court to order a person to return cremated remains that were allegedly wrongfully taken. Similarly, damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress are not available under the Health and Safety Code, section 7100 et seq.

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

CV-22-002266 - MOMENI, SASAN vs MALAK, PIERRE - Plaintiff's Motion for Good Faith Settlement - HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-25-011109 - DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Defendant Gould Medical Group's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED. The Court notes that the law recognizes the proper joinder of multiple claims against an institutional defendant where the alleged institutional conduct is common to all plaintiffs and common questions regarding that conduct are present. . (See, e.g. Moe v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826, 832-836; Smith v. Superior Court (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 607, 621-622.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations against the moving defendant are properly pursued jointly herein. Defendant's demurrer is OVERRULED.

CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice. Counsel has failed to submit proof of service of the instant motion on the client.

CV-26-000979 - CASTRO, DAVID vs GOMEZ, PATRICIO CASTRO - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of