Motion to Enforce Settlement
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 11, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-23-001402 - MARQUEZ, CESAR JIMENEZ vs GONZALEZ & CASAS FLC CORP - Motion to Enforce Settlement - HEARING REQUIRED. No motion was filed and the Court needs the parties' assistance.
CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Ulysses Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant Ulysses Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).)
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Ulysses Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
CV-25-011622 - MENDEZ, ERNESTO A vs GORDON, STEVEN - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus - HEARING REQUIRED. At the conclusion of the last hearing, some discovery issues remained outstanding.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-007586 - CAPITAL ONE NA vs AYME, CONSUELO - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the truth of facts specified be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.)
"The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Accordingly, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED.
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?”
CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - a) Defendant's Motion for Dismissal - DENIED. b) Defendant's Demurrer - OVERRULED.
a-b) On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action by submitting a verified complaint for partition by sale of real property and for declaratory relief. Plaintiff attached a March 22, 2007, grant deed which shows that Defendant added Plaintiff to the deed while the parties were not married. The summons and complaint were served on January 11, 2026.
On February 13, 2026, Defendant, acting in pro per, submitted a verified answer and cross complaint. On May 8, 2026, Defendant submitted a motion to dismiss and a separate demurrer. On May 15, 2026, Defendant submitted a declaration in support of his motion to dismiss.
In large part, Defendant argues, inter alia, that he purchased the home before the parties were married, that he added Plaintiff to the deed for convenience