Defendant, City of Modesto's Demurrer to First Amended Writ of Mandamus
b) REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550) RULING: GRANTED. Defendant Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's request to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal is unopposed and is granted.
After considering the moving papers, the Court makes the following express findings pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d): There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records at issue, including the confidentiality of settlement agreements and non’public discovery materials; The overriding interest supports sealing the records; There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest would be prejudiced if the records were not sealed; The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, as it applies only to the declaration and exhibits that disclose confidential settlement terms and non’public discovery materials; and No less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest.
The Clerk is directed to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal. All other filings shall remain publicly accessible.
CV-25-006431 - PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC vs DUCEY, ANDREW - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court notes certain discrepancies in the proposed order relative to the subject requests. Specifically, the order differs from Requests 3 and 5, in that a different charge-off creditor is named therein. In addition, the order differs from Request 6 with regard to the amount of the unpaid balance. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting these errors.
CV-25-006641 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs GONZALEZ, CRYSTAL M - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
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?”
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court notes the proposed order referenced certain attached documents, the genuineness of which are at issue in the subject requests for admission herein, but the subject attachments are not present as part of the proposed order in the Court's file. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting this error.
CV-26-003220 - HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant, City of Modesto's Demurrer to First Amended Writ of Mandamus - OVERRULED.
The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate adequately states claims for relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and, in the alternative, 1085. At the pleading stage, the Court accepts all well’pleaded factual allegations as true and does not resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. The First Amended Petition alleges a final administrative decision following a hearing at which evidence was taken and further alleges that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, was reached through a procedurally unfair process, and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion. These allegations fall squarely within the grounds for judicial review set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
Although Respondents argue that the City acted pursuant to its municipal code authority and complied with all applicable procedures, those arguments go to the merits of the administrative decision and are not properly resolved on demurrer. The First Amended Petition sufficiently pleads facts constituting a "cause" for hearing, and Respondents have not shown that it fails as a matter of law.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-23-003065 - WELLS AVE MODESTO LLC vs HAGGERTY CONSTRUCTION INC - Haggerty Construction's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint - MOOT. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties entered on May 1, 2026, the hearing on this motion is MOOT.
CV-23-004665 - PAULEEN BAJWA & MCKELLAR ENTERPRISES vs RAS AUTOMOTIVE INC - a) Defendant's Motion for Order Pursuant to C.C.P. 664.6 Adjudicating that Case has Settled and Directing Execution of the Settlement Agreement - DENIED. b) Defendant's Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Supplemental Answer to Complaint - DENIED. c) Plaintiff Pauleen Bajwa & McKellar Enterprises Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication - DENIED.
a) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff Pauleen Bajwa & McKellar Enterprises' unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and filing of the document, but not the truth of hearsay matters asserted therein except to the extent they constitute statements of a party in this proceeding. (See Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113; Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482-484; Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752-761, as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 16, 2013); Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271, as modified (Dec. 3, 2002).)
Discussion
Defendants' Motion for Order Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 adjudicating that the case has settled and directing execution of a settlement agreement is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 provides a summary procedure for enforcement of a settlement only where the parties stipulate either orally before the court or in a writing signed by the parties. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6(a).) Defendants rely on a series of text messages exchanged between Defendant Vik Randhawa and Sunny Bajwa in May and June 2024. The text messages submitted do not establish a writing signed by all parties to this action within the meaning of Sec. 664.6. The messages do not contain signatures or other sufficiently clear indicia that all parties adopted the texts as their electronic signatures for purposes of finalizing a settlement under Sec. 664.6.
The record also reflects that the messages contemplated future drafting of a settlement agreement by counsel. In addition, the present record does not establish that all material settlement terms were agreed upon in a form enforceable under Sec. 664.6. The text messages identify, at most, payment of $65,000 and delivery of a generator. The subsequent draft agreement and the parties' later communications reflect disputes concerning additional terms, including release language, dismissal procedures, timing and conditions of performance, and other substantive provisions. The Court may interpret terms to which the parties actually agreed, but it may not create material settlement terms. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)
The Court also notes Defendants' filing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, of which judicial notice has been taken, stated that "[t]he parties were never able to resolve the disagreement over the language of the written settlement document" and that "[t]he agreement is therefore not yet executed." (Pl.'s RJN Ex. A, at pdf p. 9.) Those statements further undermine Defendants' request for relief under Sec. 664.6.
b) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Answer Defendants ask to file a supplemental answer, contending, "The grounds for the motion are that the parties hereto in a series of texts negotiated a settlement of this action in June through November 2024 so that a trial of the original action is no longer appropriate and would be a waste of the courts judicial time." While leave to amend or supplement pleadings is liberally granted, the Court finds that Defendants have not