SHOLES, CAMERON vs TURLOCK RV CENTER INC

Respondent attaches a demand letter ostensibly from Petitioner to Respondent identifying several allegedly defamatory statements, addressed further below. Most of the items covered by the demand letter cover protected speech - one of them is that Respondent called for an audit of all non-profits and specifically FARA in the city of Turlock. This is a First Amendment-protected petitioning of the government.

On the other hand, allegations that Petitioner fabricated a crime, if false and partly based on non-public information, may be defamatory, and defamatory statements may be a part of a pattern of harassment. (E.G. v. M.L. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5 th 688, 701.)

PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION

There is no declaration, but the Opposition is verified. Respondent treats the factual assertions as a declaration, as does the Court. However, assertions of what the initial Petition says are not new factual assertions that can be considered if they are not in the Petition. I spent a significant amount of time attempting to reconcile the claims of the Opposition and the initial pleadings. I failed to do so.

The following portions of the verified Opposition do not appear to have a factual basis (the opposition does not have page numbers listed): "Petitioner presented evidence that Respondent repeatedly appeared near Peititioner's residence in various vehicles over an extended period of time..." (Opp. p.3, ll.6-8) "Petitioner additionally presented evidence that Respondent repeatedly contacted Petitioner through calls, messages, and social media communications after Petitioner attempted to distance herself from Respondent." (p.3, ll. 13-15) "The Petition further alleges conduct directed toward Petitioner's family members, including repeated appearances near Petitioner's adult son's workplace and conduct that caused fear and emotional distress with the household." (p.3, ll. 17-20) "Petitioner additionally submitted corroborating witness declarations from family members and other individuals who personally observed portions of the conduct." (p.4. ll. 8-10)

The following allegation is vague, does not contain a time frame, and does not explain what happened: "Petitioner also alleges that Respondent obtained and transmitted confidential information concerning Petitioner's minor child in a manner Petitioner reasonably perceived as intimidating and threatening." (p.3 ll. 21-24)

ANALYSIS

The first prong of the analysis is whether protected speech is implicated. Both sides agree that it is. The Court cannot consider protected speech and the burden shifts to Petitioner to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of her civil harassment claim.

Petitioner has fallen well short of this requirement. The evidence submitted consists largely of conclusory allegations, lacks sufficient admissible evidentiary support, and lacks the detail required to find a likelihood of success by the clear and convincing evidence standard by demonstrating a pattern of harassment. Further, the Court must find a substantial risk of future harm and the lack of detail on the timing of these events disables it from finding such a risk. (Russell v. Douvan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4 th 399, 401.)

The petition for civil harassment restraining orders is STRICKEN pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16. The June 24, 2026 hearing is vacated. Respondent shall file and serve any motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16, subdivision (c), within the time permitted by law. Respondent to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

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

CV-25-004260 - SHOLES, CAMERON vs TURLOCK RV CENTER INC - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - DENIED.

Plaintiff filed this action on May 1, 2025. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) a breach of contract claim, (2) a claim pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and (3) a claim pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Trial is currently scheduled for July 14, 2026.

Defendants Turlock RV Center, Inc., Express Systems, Inc., and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (collectively, "Defendants") submitted the instant motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, seeking an order granting summary judgment on all causes of action and forms of relief, or in the alternative, summary adjudication as to specific causes of action or claims for damages.

Defendants' arguments in support of summary judgment are not applicable to all causes of action. "[E]stablished principles of statutory construction indicate that the parol evidence rule is inapplicable" to causes of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (Wang v. Massey Chevrolet (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 856, 868 [reversing, remanding, and directing trial court to vacate its order granting summary judgment and enter a new order denying the motion for summary judgment].) Similarly, "the parol evidence rule does not bar [a] section 17200 claim." (Ibid, 871.) Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The motion for summary adjudication is procedurally defective. The issues to be summarily adjudicated are not "stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b).) Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

CV-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Plaintiff's Application for Writ of Attachment - HEARING REQUIRED, and unopposed.

The Court will hold a hearing on the application. "No order or writ shall be issued under this article except after a hearing." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 484.040.) "At the hearing, the court shall consider the showing made by the parties appearing and shall issue a right to attach order, which shall state the amount to be secured by the attachment determined by the court in accordance with Section 483.015 or 483.020, if it finds all of the following: (1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued. (2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based. (3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based. (4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 484.090.)

Defendant Protech Phone Repair sold $117,000 in receivables to Plaintiff for the purchase price of $90,000 and additional fees of $1,400. Per the parties' agreement, Defendant was funded $88,600 and agreed to pay periodic amounts of $1,500 to Plaintiff on a weekly basis until the purchase price was paid in full. Defendant has failed to make payments due under the parties' agreement. The last payment that cleared was on January 7, 2026. Plaintiff's application was submitted on May 15, 2026 and stated that the amount owed under the agreement is $103,000. The Court is inclined to GRANT the unopposed application. Moving party to submit a proposed order within five court days.

CV-26-004126 - GOLDEN HOMESTEAD LLC vs WEBB, GLENN - Petitioner's Petition for Judicial Declaration of Abandonment - CONTINUED to July 15, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The Court was unable to locate proof(s) of service of the unopposed petition. "Copies of the petition shall be served upon the homeowner, any known registered owner, and any known person having a lien or security interest of record in the mobilehome by posting a copy on the mobilehome and mailing copies to those persons at their last known addresses by registered or certified mail with a return receipt requested in the United States mail, postage prepaid." (Civ. Code, Sec. 798.61.) Accordingly, the hearing is continued to July 15, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. Petitioner shall submit the required proofs of service at least 5 court days before the hearing.