Asman, Bruce E. et al vs. Ponce, Cipriano et al

Tulare County (Civil) - Civil - https://www.tulare.courts.ca.gov/general-information/tentative-rulings Tentative Rulings Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required. Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010. Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430.

The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6. Note: The court does not issue probate examiner recommendations on petitions for approval of compromise of claim. Current Tentative Rulings The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, September 3, 2026 (modified at 3:05 pm as to Dept. 19 only) are: Re: Asman, Bruce E. et al vs. Ponce, Cipriano et al Case No.: VCU313509 Date: September 3, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Tentative Ruling: To continue this matter to September 10, 2026; 8:30 am; D1 and to order compliance with the procedural requirements of consolidation prior to consolidation as indicated herein.

Facts and Analysis Via this motion, Plaintiffs seek to consolidate this matter VCU313509 with VCU332655. VCU313509, as it stands, involves causes of action for quiet title and easements involving 13930 Idaho Ave Orosi, CA 93647 ("Subject Property"). The Court notes a pending motion to amend the complaint to add causes of action for negligence, fraud and failure to disclose involving the Subject Property. Defendants Ciprano Ponce and Sylvia Ponce are alleged claim that the garage in dispute belongs to another parcel owned by Defendants.

VCU332655 involves causes of action for negligence and misrepresentation against Defendants Bloom Group, Inc. and Alma Rosa Jimenez (alleged to have represented Plaintiffs regarding the purchase of the Subject Property) and Defendants Melson Realty, Inc. and Maxim Leo Lisitsyn (alleged to have represented the sellers of the Subject Property.) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subd. (a), "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court...it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." "A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.

The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions." (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) "Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and

one judgment." (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) "Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only." (Id. at 1149.) Consolidation "is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]." Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Here, the substantive elements of section 1048(a) appear to be met given the common issues between the matters.

However, the Court will require compliance with the procedural aspects of consolidation prior to ordering consolidation. Under California Rule of Court 3.300, a notice of related case must be filed in both VCU313509 and VCU332655. No notice of related case has been filed in either VCU313509 or VCU332655. The Court orders Plaintiffs to file the notice of related case in both VCU313509 and VCU332655. Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a), the notice of motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be designated.

While the notice was filed in VCU313509, no notice of this motion was filed in VCU332655. The Court orders Plaintiffs to file the notice of motion in VCU332655. Finally, California Rule of Court, Rule 3.350(c) requires a proposed order to be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. No proposed order has been filed in either VCU313509 or VCU332655. The Court orders Plaintiffs to a proposed order in both VCU313509 and VCU332655. Upon compliance with the procedural requirements, the Court intends to grant consolidation of these matters for all purposes.

The Court, therefore, continues this matter to September 10, 2026; 8:30 am; D1 and orders Plaintiffs to file: the notice of related cases in both VCU313509 and VCU332655; the notice of this motion in VCU332655; and the proposed order in both VCU313509 and VCU332655. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Graham, Michael vs. CA Farms, LLC Case No.: Lead: VCU3245716; consolidated with PCU325122 Date: September 3, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Motion to Quash Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion. Here, the court takes up a "Motion of Prosperity Farms, LLC to Quash Records Subpoena to Bank of the Sierra."

Receiver Focus Management Group (Focus), by the subject subpoena, seeks records from the bank where Prosperity Farms, LLC (Prosperity) maintains one or more accounts. This court's order appointing Focus directs it "to take possession, custody, and control" of a receivership estate consisting of "all assets and property, tangible and intangible, real and personal, of any kind, of [Prosperity]," "whether in the current possession of [Prosperity] or any other person or entity," and "to maintain, conserve, and liquidate" the receivership estate in accordance with the court's order.

Focus's entitlement and duty to take possession of, and control, the estate under this court's order is "exclusive."