Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, February 2, 2026, are:

Re:               Matthews, Vicki L vs. FCA US, LLC

Case No.: VCU311884

Date:         February 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant’s Motion for Relief under Section 473(b) as to Failure to Oppose Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion.

Facts

In this matter, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on December 1, 2025.

On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for relief from the order granting the summary judgment.

On December 11, 2025, the Court entered judgment in this matter.

In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating the following:

6. Plaintiffs’ counsel learned of the hearing as part of the hearing assignments made by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firm on November 26, 2025, for hearings set on December 1, 2025.

7. In preparation for the hearing on the MSJ, Plaintiffs’ counsel learned that no opposition had been filed to the MSJ.

…

9. If Plaintiffs’ counsel had known about the opposition deadline, and/or that no opposition had been filed, Plaintiffs’ counsel would have opposed the MSJ.

10. It was determined through an internal investigation that, due to an oversight of the firm’s docketing department, the hearing date and opposition deadline were not properly calendared and assigned, resulting in Plaintiffs inadvertently not opposing the MSJ.

…

12. I submit this Declaration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inadvertent error of failing to timely oppose the Defendant’s MSJ heard on December 1, 2025.” (Declaration of Counsel ¶¶6-7, 9-10, 12.)

In opposition, Defendant notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared at the hearing and opposed the motion, that the internal calendaring error is not excusable when counsel was aware of the summary judgment hearing date.

Authority and Analysis

Generally, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the court may grant discretionary relief to a party from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding that was entered against the party due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect on the part of the party. (Id.)

However, also under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the court must grant relief (mandatory relief) when an attorney for the party seeking relief submits a sworn affidavit (or declaration) attesting that his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect caused the judgment to be entered against the party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438 [explaining difference between mandatory and discretionary relief under section 473, subd. (b)].)

As to this mandatory relief provision, Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) states, in relevant part, the following:

“…Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b))

However, Plaintiffs' reliance on Avila v. Chua (2006) 57 Cal.App.4th 860 for entitlement to the mandatory relief provision of section 473(b) is misplaced, as subsequent rulings in English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130 and Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 290 disapprove the holdings in both cases.

The English court noted, in relation to Avila and “default” the following:

“Based on our construction of the statute, the Avila court's conclusion that a summary judgment is “directly analogous to a default judgment” when the opposing party fails to file a timely opposition to the motion misses the point. (Avila v. Chua, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 868.) It is not an appellate court's task, nor, indeed, its prerogative, when interpreting a statute, to extend the scope of the statute to encompass situations “analogous” to those the statute explicitly addresses. Rather, an appellate court's task is simply to determine what the Legislature meant by the words it used, relying first and foremost on the words themselves. For the reasons already given, the terms “default” and “default judgment,” as used in the mandatory provision of section 473(b), cannot reasonably be construed to encompass a summary judgment, regardless of whatever omissions or failures by counsel may have preceded the entry of that judgment.” (English, supra, 94 Cal. App. 4^th at 144.)

The English court applied the same reasoning as to the term “dismissal” stating “Applying this principle of construction to the mandatory provision of section 473(b), we construe the word “dismissal” as having a limited meaning similar to the term “default judgment.”” (Id. at 145.)

The court in English, however, noted that “in the appropriate circumstances, of course, relief from a summary judgment may be available to either a plaintiff or a defendant under the discretionary provision of section 473(b). This is so because discretionary relief under the statute is not limited to defaults, default judgments, and dismissals, but is available from any judgment.” (Id. at 149.)

The Court in Prieto stated that “…the Legislature expressly limited the scope of the mandatory provision of section 473(b) to require relief from default judgments only.” (Id. at 295-296.)

Here, the only declaration set forth is from Plaintiff’s counsel as to mandatory relief under section 473(b). The Court lacks evidence as to the discretionary relief available under section 473(b).

Therefore, the Court denies the motion.

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.

Re:                PCA Acquisitions V, LLC vs. Castillo, Abigail

Case No.:   VCL327455

Date:           February 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant’s Motion to Quash

Tentative Ruling: To inquire as to service of this motion to quash. No proof of service appears attached to the filing and no opposition to the motion appears in the file.

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.

Re:               Munger Bros., LLC vs. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.

Case No.:  VCU311567

Date:          February 2, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:    (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Additional Deposition of Defendant Neece and Production of Documents; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing.

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.

Re:                Mireles, Javier State of California Ex. Rel. vs. Central Valley Construction

Case No.:  VCU293499

Date:           February 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:    (1) Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Hearing re: Status of Distribution of Settlement

Tentative Ruling: (1) To grant the motion as indicated herein; (2) To inquire as to distribution of the settlement, as no supplemental declaration appears to have been filed by the settlement administrator.

(1) Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Facts

On December 11, 2025, Defendant’s Counsel Rachele Berglund / Fernando M. Garcia filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Defendant Central Valley Construction. Defendant’s Counsel filed the following with respect to withdrawing:

(1) MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel;

(2) MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and

(3) MC-053 - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Additionally, Defendant’s Counsel has filed proof of service of these documents by mail.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; [or] 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) requires that the “notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”

As noted above, counsel has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) by submitting the notice and motion on MC-051 and by directing the notice and motion to all parties.

California Rule of Court 3.1362 (c) further mandates that: “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). Specifically, the declaration that Rule 3.1362(c) requires must state that the moving attorney attempted to secure a “Substitution of Attorney” from the client as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) and that the client refused to so stipulate.

Here, the declaration is properly made on form MC-052, and uses general terms without compromising confidentiality and indicates that Counsel has attempted to contact Defendant, but has been unable to for some time. As such, the Court will excuse the lack of express reference to attempts to obtain a substitution by stipulation.

Next, service under Rule 3.1362(d) requires personal service, electronic service, or mail and counsel’s declaration must note the service made. Here, personal service was made on November 14, 2025 and by mail at the last known address.

Finally, Rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed order be lodged with the Court on MC-053 with the moving papers, specifying all hearing dates scheduled, including date of trial. Defendant’s Counsel has complied with this requirement.

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as to Defendant Central Valley Construction. If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the order entitled “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil” that the moving party lodged with the Court.  This order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of a proof of personal service of the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to Defendant.

The Court further directs counsel to attach to the Order an additional notice of the date, time, and Department of this court for any future hearing dates for this case as calendared.

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.

Re:                Webster McLean, Timothy vs. Avery, Norma et al

Case No.:   VCU326321

Date:           February 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Corona Defendants’ Demurrer

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s response to the demurrer offers to address the deficiencies raised by demurrer via the filing of an amended complaint. The Court, therefore, sustains the demurrer with 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.

Re:                 Uqdah, Priscilla, et al. vs. Friends of Allensworth, et al.

Case No.:   VCU306537 

Date:            February 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

Tentative Ruling:  To deny the motion to compel and request for sanctions. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) moves to compel plaintiff/cross-defendant Ann Williams to respond to form interrogatories served in January 2025.   

In State Parks’s motion, filed December 19, 2025, it represents Williams had yet to respond to the subject discovery despite three extensions up to April 21, 2025, and State Parks waiting for Williams to retain new counsel after her prior counsel withdrew shortly before the extended April 21^st deadline that State Parks provided for Williams to respond (Williams’s current counsel substituted in as her counsel in October 2025). 

Williams’s opposition indicates she has served the discovery responses at issue and did so on or about January 12, 2026 (after this instant motion was filed).  As of the court’s last check, State Parks had not filed a reply.  The court assumes State has received Williams’s discovery responses and, accordingly, deems the motion to compel moot. 

State Parks additionally requested sanctions.  The court denies this request. 

According to the declarations of Williams’s attorneys, Kevin Little and Victoria Vasey (who is retired but volunteering her time to assist Williams and Little in this case), in the course of reviewing the case files after taking on the task of assisting Williams, they came upon written discovery responses, including responses to form interrogatories, that they believed may have been served in April 2025.  According to Little, “[a]ll of the information [he] received upon coming into this case was to the effect that those discovery responses had been served on April 21, 2025 … ,” and he is “still … being told those responses were served … .”  Vasey additionally states that, when she reviewed the file, she came upon the responses and noted verifications had been signed April 20^th and 21^st of 2025, and she had no reason to believe they had not been served. 

State Park’s counsel, Joeseph Isenstadt, indicates he sent a number of emails to attorney Little during December to which no response was received.  If true, this is not commendable responsiveness on attorney Little’s part, but, notwithstanding that, it appears the issues giving rise to this motion could have been cleared up with a brief phone call. 

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.

Re:                 Martinez, Psalms vs. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

Case No.:   VCU294960

Date:           February 2, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:      Hearing re: Distribution of Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To inquire at the hearing as to distribution of the settlement.

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.

Examiner Notes for Probate Matters Calendared

• Visalia Division 
• South County Justice Center Division