HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motion on calendar that day.

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

CV-25-003541 - GLORIA, ESTEBAN vs FINNEGAN, CHERYL LYNN - Defendant Cheryl Lynn Finnegan's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint - GRANTED. Defendant has met her initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law. The undisputed evidence establishes that Finnegan was employed by Sylvan Unified School District, was on duty, and was operating a school bus along an assigned route transporting students at the time of the subject incident.

These facts establish that she was acting within the course and scope of her public employment. As a result, Plaintiff's claims are subject to the Government Claims Act. The evidence further establishes that Plaintiff's claim was rejected, notice of rejection was sent in early January 2024, and Plaintiff did not file suit until April 16, 2025 - well beyond the six-month statutory period. The action is therefore time-barred under Government Code section 945.6.

The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff presents no admissible evidence showing that Finnegan was acting outside the course and scope of employment. Plaintiff's reliance on assertions of distraction, argument, and speculation is insufficient to create a triable issue. Plaintiff does not dispute the operative dates relevant to the timeliness of the action. Accordingly, the statutory bar applies as a matter of law. Plaintiff's estoppel arguments are unavailing.

The record does not demonstrate any actionable misrepresentation of fact, and estoppel does not arise based on litigation positions or alleged misstatements of law. Additionally, Plaintiff's opposition was filed late. The Court has discretion to disregard the untimely opposition. Even if considered, the opposition fails to raise a triable issue for the reasons stated above.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Both parties' requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. The Court takes notice of the existence and filing of the documents, but not the truth of disputed matters asserted therein.

Evidentiary Objections: All objections are OVERRULED as immaterial to the disposition of the motion.

Disposition: The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant.

CV-25-005406 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs SERENO, JACLYN - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings - DENIED, without prejudice. Proof of service of the instant motion is not admissible herein because it does not comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2015.5. In the absence of a response from Defendant, the Court cannot conclude that service was properly accomplished in this instance.

CV-26-000780 - CHAHAL, NAHAR SINGH vs NEWREZ LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice. Counsel fails to sufficiently demonstrate his inability to obtain the client's consent to a substitution of attorneys pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 284(1). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c).)

CV-26-003220 - HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP 1085); Request for Emergency Stay and Immediate Release of Property - DENIED.

Summary of Reasons: The administrative decision challenged in the First Amended Petition was issued pursuant to Modesto Municipal Code section 5 4.204, which sets forth multiple, independent grounds for designating a dog as "vicious" and abating the resulting public nuisance. The Hearing Officer made express factual findings corresponding to those statutory criteria, including findings that the dog was involved in multiple bite incidents, that at least one incident resulted in documented injuries to a person acting peacefully and lawfully, that defensive intervention was required, and that the dog posed an ongoing threat of bodily harm. Those findings were adopted by the City Manager in the final administrative order.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the Court's role is limited to determining whether the administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proceedings were conducted in a manner consistent with due process. The Court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony. The administrative record, as summarized in the Hearing Officer's findings and the City Manager's order, contains evidence of reasonable, credible, and solid value supporting the determination that the dog is "vicious" within the meaning of Modesto Municipal Code section 5 4.204.

The record further reflects that Petitioner received notice of the hearing, appeared and testified, submitted written materials, and was afforded an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented by the City. The Hearing Officer expressly found that the requirements of administrative due process - notice and an opportunity to be heard - were satisfied. On this record, Petitioner has not established a prejudicial abuse of discretion or a denial of a fair hearing. Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the administrative decision and no due process violation has been shown, the First Amended Petition for writ relief is denied.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-21-000749 - SCHMIDT, JON vs TRINUT FARM MANAGEMENT INC - Defendant Sarbjit Athwal's Demurrer to Plaintiff Jon Schmidt's First Amended Complaint (FAC) - OVERRULED. Defendant's statute of limitations argument is not established on the face of the pleading. The FAC does not allege a specific date of breach, and Plaintiff asserts tolling and other accrual theories. Resolution of accrual and tolling issues is fact dependent and not appropriate on demurrer. The applicability of the relation back doctrine likewise presents factual issues.

The Court previously required briefing on notice, mistake, and prejudice. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's role was not understood until discovery and that Defendant not only had notice of the action but participated in its defense. Resolution of these factual issues is not appropriate at the pleading stage. Defendant's standing argument depends on interpretation of the assignment, which is not conclusively established by the FAC. Additionally, without conceding lack of standing, Plaintiff notes that Summit Gold intended to convey all of its rights and obligations then accrued to Plaintiff, and if the assignment did not effectuate the transfer, the assignment can be amended.

For all these reasons, Defendant's demurrer must be OVERRULED. Defendant shall file a substantive response to the First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of notice of the Court's ruling on the demurrer.

CV-23-004553 - BARSTOW, CHEYENNE vs PSR EMERITUS INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint - GRANTED. California policy strongly favors liberally permitting amended pleadings. "The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified." (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

In this particular case, the Court has its doubts about whether the application of relation-back is appropriate given the description of the new defendant (as set forth in paragraph 6 of the proposed amended complaint) in relation to the current defendant. However, the trial date in this case has been vacated. And the current defendant has decided to bow out of the case and deliberately take a default as opposed to litigating further. As