Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, June 2, 2026, are:

Re:                 Dodson, Jennifer vs. Automobile Club of Southern California

Case No.:    VCU308283

Date:            June 2, 2026

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.            2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:      Hearing re: Distribution of PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To inquire as to the funding of the settlement and distribution by Simplurius, Inc. to aggrieved employees.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Gonzalez, Brandon vs. City of Porterville

Case No.:   VCU328948

Date:           June 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:      Demurrer

Tentative Ruling: To sustain the demurrer with leave to amend; Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to file an amended complaint.

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff alleges he was, while wearing ankle restraints, in the process of boarding a transportation van at 300 E Olive Ave, Porterville belonging to Defendants City of Porterville, County of Tulare, State of California, California Department of Corrections, Los Angeles County Superior Court and/or Tulare County Superior Court, when Plaintiff, due to Defendant John Doe’s stopping or parking of the transportation van at an unsafe distance from the curb or sidewalk, slipped or tripped causing severe injury. (Complaint.)

Defendant County of Tulare demurrers to each cause of negligence for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Amongst other arguments, the County argues the application of Government Code section 844.6 immunity applicable to prisoners.

No opposition has been filed.

Authority and Analysis

The purpose of a demurrer is to test whether a complaint “states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be based.” (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 209, 220.  To state a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege facts to support his or her claims, and it is improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead general conclusions. (Careau v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 11371, 1390.) The complaint must contain facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action, and thus a court should sustain the demurrer if “the defendants negate any essential element of a particular cause of action.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4^th 857, 879-80)

To determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those that arise by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusion of fact or law (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4^th 634, 638.)

It is well-settled that all well-pled material facts in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purpose of the demurer.  (C & H Foods v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062) But “doubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist. (Id.)

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no "speaking demurrers"). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

Government Tort Liability and Immunity

"In California all government tort liability is dependent on the existence of an authorizing statute or 'enactment' (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a), 815.6; [citations]) and to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty." (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School District (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)

As noted above, Plaintiff here alleges causes of action for negligence under Government Code section 815.2 and Vehicle Code section 17001.

Government Code section 844.6 states:

“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, except as provided in this section and in Sections 814, 814.2, 845.4, and 845.6, or in Title 2.1 (commencing with Section 3500) of Part 3 of the Penal Code, a public entity is not liable for:

(1) An injury proximately caused by any prisoner.

(2) An injury to any prisoner.

(b) Nothing in this section affects the liability of a public entity under Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code.

(c) Except for an injury to a prisoner, nothing in this section prevents recovery from the public entity for an injury resulting from the dangerous condition of public property under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830) of this part…”

As Government Code section 844.6 explicitly provides for a public entity’s immunity in the context of an injury proximately caused to any prisoner, section 815.2 does not serve as a basis for a public liability in that context. To hold otherwise would be to annul the protection of section 844.6: “If a specific immunity statute applies, it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.” (Towery v. State of California (2017) 14 Cal.App.4th 226, 2333-234.) Additionally, though “a public entity may be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employees (Gov.Code, § 815.2), that rule does not apply in the case of injuries to prisoners.” (Lawson v. Superior Court (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1383.)

As to the pleading of an exception under Vehicle Code section 17001, the Court agrees that the allegation of parking a transport vehicle at an unsafe distance from a curb and/or sidewalk and a resulting fall does not constitute operation of a vehicle to impose liability. “To meet this statutory requirement [of being ‘in the operation of [a] motor vehicle’] ‘it is not sufficient that a motor vehicle somehow be involved in the series of events that results in the injury.’ (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 923.) Instead, ‘the vehicle must be in a ‘state of being at work’ or ‘in the … exercise of some specific function’ by performing work or producing effects at the time and place the injury is inflicted.” (Chilcote v. San Bernardino County (1933) 218 Cal. 444, 445 [23 P.2d 748], italics added [construing predecessor of Veh. Code, § 17001, Civ. Code, former § 1714 1/2].)”
(Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal.4th 501, 520.)

The Court does not view the parked transport van as being in the state of being at work or in the exercise of some specific function and therefore does not find there is an operation of a vehicle in satisfaction of section 17001.

As such, the Court sustains the demurrer.

A demurrer cannot be sustained without leave to amend where it appears that the facts alleged establish a cause of action under any possible legal theory or it is reasonably possible that the plaintiff can amend the complaint to allege any cause of action. (Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, and Woolverton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 1219, 1226.)

Therefore, the Court will grant leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to file an amended complaint.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 LVNV Funding LLC vs. Smith, Charles A

Case No.:  VCL300690

Date:           June 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 11 admitted.

Facts

On or about October 18, 2023, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to counsel at the address on Defendant’s answer.

As of the date of the filing of this motion, no response has been received by Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks to deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 11 admitted.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. Here, Defendant has failed to serve a timely response and Plaintiff has moved for an order to deem the admissions admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 11 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                Lopez, Celedonio vs. Barrera, Rodrigo Toledo

Case No.:  VCU322807

Date:          June 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production; (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (4): To inquire as to service of these motions. The Court notes an initial motion filed April 30, 2026 and an amended motion filed May 20, 2026. However, neither filing appears to contain a proof of service pertaining to the motion itself. The Court notes no opposition filed to the motions. The Court will order a proof of service to be filed and continues these motions to July 30, 2026, 8:30 am. Dept. 2.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                In the Matter of Jerrilyn Milliken Family Trust

Case No.:   VPR053672

Date:           June 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 49 admitted.

Facts

On or about March 26, 2026, Petitioner served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Respondent. The discovery was mailed to the address of counsel as stated on Respondent’s objection and opposition to the petition. As of the date of the filing of this motion, no response has been received by Petitioner. Petitioner now seeks to deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 49 admitted.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. Here, Respondent has failed to serve a timely response and Petitioner has moved for an order to deem the admissions admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 49 of Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                Ruiz, Maria vs. Cervantes, Amber Justina et al

Case No.:  VCL332688

Date:          June 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion to Set Aside Default 

Tentative Ruling: There appears to be no additional filings associated with this motion. At the last hearing, the Court noted that the case would continue to be masked and that Defendant Aaliah Cervantes would be dismissed post lockout. The Court will inquire as to the status of the lockout and the status of the dismissal.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                Fuentes, Amanda vs. General Motors, LLC

Case No.:   VCU333368

Date:           June 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Demurrer

Tentative Ruling: To find the demurrer moot by the filing of the first amended complaint on May 18, 2026.  

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                Schuler, Dillon vs. Schuler, Terry

Case No.:   PCU329769 

Date:           June 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motions:    Motion in Limine; Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP)

Tentative Rulings: The motion in limine is denied without prejudice.  The anti-SLAPP motion is denied.

Dillon Schuler filed a motion in limine and an anti-SLAPP motion.

Motion in Limine

By way of the first motion, Dillon seeks “an order excluding any testimony, evidence, or reference to … :  Any expunged, dismissed, or sealed cases involving [Dillon]”; “Any past criminal history, allegations of criminal conduct, or ‘prior bad acts’ not directly relevant to this wrongful termination suit”; and “Any personal information, social media activity, or financial records irrelevant to work performance or employment claims.”

Dillon asserts “[t]his is a wrongful termination case” and that the categories of evidence identified in his motion should be excluded because they are “irrelevant” to such a case, and “prejudicial” in the context of the issues therein raised. 

It is somewhat clear, as Dillon indicates, that a termination event is one thing at issue in his suit, but the scope of the complaint, generally, is uncertain.  The allegations are difficult to follow; it is not easy to conclude Dillon’s suit is just “a wrongful termination case.” 

There is, in any event, more at issue in this case than what is pled just in Dillon’s complaint (whatever its scope might be).  Though not mentioned by Dillon, defendant Terry Schuler has filed a cross-complaint, and, in it, he alleges Dillon “physically attacked” him “[i]n 2025,” and, based on that allegation, he asserts an assault and battery claim (and he also asserts other, different claims). 

Given the issues raised by the cross-complaint, the court is disinclined to determine, at this stage, that the categories of evidence presented in Diller’s motion would necessarily be “irrelevant” to the issues ultimately to be determined at trial, or that all such categories of evidence are unduly “prejudicial.”  As a general practice, this court typically addresses in limine motions closer to trial when the parties are further along in trial preparation efforts.  (See TCSC Local Rule 608, 611; see also Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1593 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361] [“In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues in advance of trial.”].) 

Accordingly, the court denies the motion without prejudice to Dillon re-raising these or other objections, closer to trial, in a subsequent motion to exclude specific evidence that Terry intends to, or that Dillon believes Terry intends to, have admitted at trial.  Also, this motion is denied without prejudice to any objection Dillon might raise to evidence Terry seeks to admit during trial. 

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Dillon also filed an anti-SLAPP motion.  Dillon’s motion states that he moves to strike Terry Schuler’s entire cross-complaint.  On review of the whole of the motion, however, it’s clear Dillon only expressly targets Terry’s assault and battery claim.

Dillon maintains the cross-complaint “is a retalitory [sic] SLAPP suit.”  By this, Dillon means that Terry sued him for assault and battery in retaliation for his having sued Terry.  

Whether Terry sued Dillon for assault and battery in retaliation for his suit, however, is irrelevant.  (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 74 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519, 52 P.3d 695]; id., p. 77.)  Dillon is required, instead, to make a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action—in this case, the assault and battery claim—“is one ‘arising from’ protected activity.” (Id., at p. 76, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

Where, as here, Dillon asserts a lawsuit as the subject protected petitioning activity, he must specifically show that that petitioning activity “supplies one or more elements” of Terry’s assault and battery claim.  (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 887 [249 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 444 P.3d 706].) 

Dillon fails to make such showing, and it is obvious why he cannot.  Terry’s assault and battery claim is not based on Dillon’s suit, but on allegations that Dillon “physically attacked” him.

Accordingly, the anti-SLAPP motion is denied.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding - Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Wednesday, June 3, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
VPR054076	In the Matter of Maldonado Arroyo, Celia	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054069	In the Matter of Shaffer, Beverly Lynn	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054029	In the Matter of Palomino, Russell	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Petition Item 5a, (3) or (4); (7) or (8) omitted: regarding any surviving registered domestic partner or issue of predeceased child. Notice of Petition to Administer Estate not filed (DE-121)— the complete notice shall contain contents as required in Probate Code § 8100.
VPR054077	In the Matter of Torres, Ernest Nathaniel	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommended for Approval
VPR053672	In the Matter of Jerrilyn Milliken Family Trust	Contested Hearing	Appearance Required	OSC scheduled for respondent’s failure to appear
VPR054066	In the Matter of Hurtado Chavez, Jesus Alejandro	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054072	In the Matter of Gamez, Fatima	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing not filed
VPR053777	In the Matter of Woods, Samantha Zhu	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Thursday, May 21, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR054038	In the Matter of Turnbough, Jerrilee Ann	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
PPR054033	In the Matter of Frazier, Joan	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Petition Incomplete: Caption not selected – Authorization to Administer under the IAEA (full authority requested). Item 6(b) – No selection made, but issues of deceased parents are listed in 8. Item 8 – Age of siblings, and need notion if there is no issue of deceased siblings.
PPR053952	In the Matter of Havekost, Kathleen Louise	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number incomplete, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4). Proof of Publication not filed.
PPR054049	In the Matter of Akin, Samie Jane	Petition Hearing	Appearance Required	Incomplete/untimely notice: A 30-day notice of hearing is required pursuant Probate Code §851(a)