Defendant's Motion for Dismissal; Defendant's Demurrer
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 only, that Plaintiff never contributed to the home, and that the home was not listed as a community property asset in the divorce settlement. On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff submitted opposition briefs. On June 5, 2026, Defendant submitted a reply brief.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is procedurally defective. A party seeking to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint must do so by demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 430.10; 430.30(a).) Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Defendant's demurrer is procedurally defective. A demurrer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 430.40(a).) Here, the Defendant was served on January 11, 2026 but did not submit the demurrer until four months later on May 8, 2026. The demurrer is untimely. The demurer also fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a), which requires that "[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.41.) Here, there was no meet and confer. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
PR-24-000599 - Estate of ALBANO, GEORGETTE ARLENE - Petitioner's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED without prejudice. The motion is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service in the court file showing service of the papers on the client and all parties who have appeared in the matter (including creditors) as required by rules 3.1300(c) and 3.1362(d) of the California Rules of Court. In addition, the Court requires notice to the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate as set forth in Item 8 of the petition for probate. Because the motion is procedurally defective, it is DENIED without prejudice.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-007641 - KHINOO, JANICE DENYSE vs ASPIRANET - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:
7-13-26 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
7-27-26 Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
9-10-26 Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
10-23-26 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for November 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court. The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
CV-25-004778 - MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES INC vs MOUNTAIN VIEW HARVESTING LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Party Prevailing on Contract and to Fix Amount of Attorney's Fees Awardable as Item of Costs - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 1717. Based on the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds that the time expended and the hourly fees claimed are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover to $8,927.50 in attorney's fees from Defendant Sing herein.