Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6. Note: The court does not issue probate examiner recommendations on petitions for approval of compromise of claim.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Friday, April 3, 2026, are:
Re: Ram, Anjani W. vs. Cortez, George
Case No.: VCL329554
Date: April 3, 2026
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman
Motion: Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Stay Execution of Writ of Possession
Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion.
Facts
In this unlawful detainer matter, the Court held trial on February 24, 2026, granted judgment for possession only for Plaintiff. The writ of possession was issued on February 24, 2026. The parties agreed at trial there would be no lockout until March 24, 2026
On April 1, 2026, Defendants filed this ex parte motion to stay execution of the writ. In support, Defendants state the lockout is set to occur April 7, 2026, they have not had an opportunity to secure alternative housing, they will be homeless, they request a stay until April 18, 2026, and that they are prepared to deposit per diem rent for the length of the proposed stay.
Authority and Analysis
Defendants seek to stay execution of the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 918. While section 918 contains no express grounds to issue a discretionary stay, equitable or hardship issues may be considered. Defendants have not provided sufficient grounds for hardship.
This was not a default proceeding. The parties appeared at trial over a month ago and defendants agreed to vacate the property one month later, by March 24, 2026. They did not do so. Plaintiff agreed not to pursue a monetary judgment at that time, even though the rental defaults went back to September 2025 according to the three- day notice filed in this matter. No rent has been paid in the interim.
As this was an agreement by all parties for an extended time to vacate the property that waived any monetary judgment, the court does not find a further stay equitable.
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.