BARSTOW, CHEYENNE vs PSR EMERITUS INC

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 a result, the Court cannot see any significant prejudice to either defendant from permitting this amended pleading. Consequently, the Court errs on the side of liberality and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, thus leaving it to the new defendant to challenge the propriety of the pleading. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [finding the " 'preferable practice' " to be permitting an amended pleading and letting the adverse party " 'test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.' [Citation.]"].)

But the Court also adds the following caveat: if Defendant Peters is not served by August 11, 2026, the Court will dismiss the action against him. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.210(a).)

The Court VACATES the Court's Motion to Dismiss scheduled for June 10, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 and SETS a Case Management Conference for August 17, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24. Plaintiff to file the amended complaint within five court days. The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion.

CV-25-007555 - GARY, STANLEY vs VASQUEZMARIN, EMANUEL - a) Plaintiff Stanley Gary's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Plaintiff Brian Harrison's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Stanley Gary

The unopposed motion of Attorneys Giorgio Cassandra and Elliott Eghbali from the law firm of BD&J, PC, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Stanley Gary is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. The Court notes that the information in the proposed order regarding the "next scheduled hearing" set forth in Item 7a is now stale. Moving Counsel are directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that updates the information for the next case management conference to September 28, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

b) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Brian Harrison

The unopposed motion of Attorneys Giorgio Cassandra and Elliott Eghbali from the law firm of BD&J, PC, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Brian Harrison is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. The Court notes that the information in the proposed order regarding the "next scheduled hearing" set forth in Item 7a is now stale. Moving Counsel are directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that updates the information for the next case management conference to September 28, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

CV-25-011144 - LISTMAN, REBECCA LYNN vs DHILLON, SUKBINDER - Defendant's Application of Matthew W. Casey to Appear Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The unopposed application of Attorney Matthew W. Casey to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Sukbinder Dhillon is GRANTED. The Court finds that the application complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. The applicant has demonstrated that he is an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction, is not a California resident or regularly engaged in practice in California, and is properly associated with California counsel. The verified application includes all information required under rule 9.40(d), including disclosure of prior pro hac vice appearances.

The Court further finds that the procedural requirements of rule 9.40(c), including notice and service on all parties and the State Bar, have been satisfied. Accordingly, Matthew W. Casey is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action, subject to compliance with all applicable California laws, rules, and professional responsibilities.

The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the court file for this application. The Moving Party is directed to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with this ruling.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department