Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, June 22, 2026, are:

Re:                Martinez, Fernando vs. Fire Insurance Exchange

Case No.:  VCU323858 

Date:           June 22, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling:  To grant the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) moves for summary judgment on the complaint of plaintiff Fernando Martinez.  Plaintiff has submitted no opposition.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and tortious bad faith based on an alleged insured loss event on April 13, 2024, and claims for breach of contract and tortious bad faith based on an alleged insured loss event on October 23, 2024.

As to the first alleged insured loss event, plaintiff alleges: “On 04-13-2024, Plaintiff’s home suffered a sudden and accidental event consisting of strong winds which damaged the roof and caused water intrusion into the interior of the residence resulting in significant water throughout plaintiff’s home.”

As to the second alleged insured loss event, plaintiff alleges, “On 10-23-2024, Plaintiff’s home suffered a sudden discharge of water due to a valve leak under the kitchen sink. Moisture damage and ongoing humidity was found under the sink in the wooden base, in the side cabinets, and in the baseboard.”

As to both breach claims, plaintiff alleges FIE breached the terms of his homeowners’ policy contract by determining plaintiff’s loss claims arising from each of the alleged insured loss events were not covered under his policy. 

As to both bad faith claims, plaintiff alleges FIE failed to conduct a full investigation of his respective claims and failed to provide full coverage under the terms of the policy (i.e., that FIE denied plaintiff’s claims in bad faith).

FIE’s motion is made on the grounds that there is no evidence that FIE breached its insurance contract with plaintiff, or that it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Summary Judgment

Irrespective of plaintiff’s non-opposition, FIE, “bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493] (Aguilar).) 

Specifically, here, FIE bears the burden of persuasion that it did not fail to properly investigate plaintiff’s claims (see Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 817 [169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141]), and that it did not fail to pay the full amount of any loss covered according to the terms of plaintiff’s policy (see Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Assn. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775, 791 [244 Cal.Rptr. 655, 750 P.2d 297].)  (See also, Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850 [defendant bears burden of persuasion that one or more elements of plaintiff’s challenged cause of action cannot be established].) 

If FIE makes these respective showings, it need not make a separate showing that it did not deny plaintiff’s claims in bad faith because that conclusion would necessarily follow from the first two showings. 

“[A] moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: ‘The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1095, 1103 [236 Cal.Rptr.3d 128].)

If FIE carries its burden of production, it will cause a shift, subjecting plaintiff to “a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)  Because plaintiff has failed to file any opposition, however, it necessarily follows that plaintiff cannot be deemed to have met such burden, and, therefore, if FIE carries its initial burden of production, it will necessarily establish entitlement to summary judgment.  Indeed, plaintiff’s failure to have filed a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by FIE to be undisputed may be deemed, itself, “a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting [FIE’s] motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)

FIE’s showing

1. Plaintiff’s policy(ies)

FIE submits that plaintiff’s property was covered by a homeowner’s policy issued by FIE that was in effect from July 11, 2024 until July 11, 2025, and it submits a copy of the policy. 

The court notes, however, that one set of plaintiff’s breach/bad faith claims are based on an alleged covered loss event on April 13, 2024, which precedes the policy period of the policy submitted by FIE.  The court additionally notes, however, FIE submitted requests for admissions that it sent plaintiff, which asked plaintiff to admit that an attached copy of a policy reflecting a policy period of June 3, 2023 to July 11, 2024 was his policy, and plaintiff admitted that it was. 

Accordingly, the court concludes, based on plaintiff’s discovery admission, that the copy of the policy attached to FIE’s submitted requests for admissions is a copy of the policy that was in effect at the time of plaintiff’s alleged covered loss event on April 13, 2024, and that the copy of the policy submitted by FIE as having been in effect for the policy period July 11, 2024 to July 11, 2025, was the policy in effect at the time of plaintiff’s alleged covered loss event on October 23, 2024.

2. Kitchen Claim (10/23/2024 alleged loss)

a.  Submitted Facts

Under the policy as effective for the policy period July 11, 2024 to July 11, 2025, coverage is provided for water damage of covered property if the water results from “a sudden, abrupt, and accidental discharge, eruption, overflow, or release of water, other than a water - reverse flow, from within any portion of … a plumbing system.”  Coverage is not provided, however, for water damage from “a constant or repeating gradual or slow release of water, or the infiltration or presence of water over a period of time, regardless of the volume of water involved,” and, similarly, coverage is not provided for “water, or the presence of water, over a period of time from any constant or repeating gradual or slow, seepage, leakage, trickle, collection, spray, or mist, infiltration or overflow of water from any source … .”

FIE submits, based on the respective declarations of claims representatives Justin Norred and Megan Buchanan, and a declaration of its counsel, Robin Krutzsch, covering FIE’s propounded discovery and plaintiff’s responses, the following undisputed facts:

Plaintiff submitted a claim on the alleged October 2024 leaking kitchen sink valve loss on October 29, 2024, and claims representative Buchanan reached out to plaintiff for documents and information regarding the claim.  Buchanan retained ServiceMaster to assist in inspection of the property, and an inspection was done on November 5, 2024.  Buchanan, claims representative Norred, and a representative of Service Master inspected the property.  During inspection of the property, ServiceMaster checked for moisture but there was no moisture detected. Buchanan and ServiceMaster did not find any visible water damage in the interior of the property, including under the sink or in the adjoining cabinets and baseboard. The bottom plate under the kitchen sink had been removed prior to the inspection and it appeared that a new drain line was installed, but there was no evidence of the cause of the loss or of a sudden escape of water.

Buchanan requested additional information from plaintiff's counsel, who provided their consultant reports, photographs, and estimates for review, but the reports and photographs did not show evidence of a sudden release of water.

Buchanan denied the claim because the inspection revealed no damages or moisture and because plaintiff failed to provide information revealing damages or moisture. 

FIE additionally submitted discovery demands inquiring as to facts supporting liability by FIE.  FIE asked plaintiff for all facts, persons with knowledge, and documents supporting his claims. Plaintiff produced inspection reports, photographs, estimates, and invoices from plaintiff's consultants, Prime Restoration CA LLC and Global Estimates Inc., but these estimates and inspection reports did not reveal evidence of a covered loss or a covered occurrence. Plaintiff’s responses did not identify particular property damage claimed as a covered loss or identify the cause of any property damage that could be considered a covered occurrence under the terms of his policy.

Plaintiff admitted at deposition that he had not noticed a leak under his sink before his counsel’s consultants inspected his home, and he did not have any information about the cause of the leak under his sink.

b.  FIE makes a sufficient prima facie showing as to both claims relating to the October 2024 incident and establishes entitlement to summary judgment.

FIE made both (a) a sufficient prima facie showing negating that plaintiff suffered a covered loss resulting from “a sudden, abrupt, and accidental discharge, eruption, overflow, or release of water … from within any portion of … a plumbing system”; and (b) a sufficient prima facie showing of discovery responses revealing that plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that he suffered such a covered loss. 

FIE additionally made a sufficient prima facie showing negating that FIE failed to properly investigate plaintiff’s claim.

Because plaintiff necessarily fails to carry his burden to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact, FIE is entitled to summary judgment on the breach and bad faith causes of action with respect to the October 2024 allegedly covered loss.

3. Roof Claim (4/13/2024 alleged loss)

a.  Submitted Facts

Under the policy as effective for the policy period June 3, 2023 to July 11, 2024, water damage is covered when entry of the water to the covered structure is caused by wind.  Water damage incident to construction defects, latent defects, wear and tear, and lack of maintenance and the failure to make repairs, however, is not covered under the policy.

Plaintiff submitted a claim on the alleged April 2024 wind/roof/water loss on November 4, 2024.  The same day Buchanan, Norred and ServiceMaster inspected the property in connection with the October 2024 kitchen valve leak claim they inspected the property in connection with the April 2024 wind/roof/water loss claim.

Norred did not find signs of wind damage. He found areas of staples through the roof shingles and a section roll roofing on a slope over the shingles, which were attributed to faulty workmanship. The roof also showed signs of wear and tear.  Norred found that any rainwater damage would have resulted from the compromised roof damages and, therefore, such damage would not be covered by the plaintiff’s policy.

Plaintiff, through his counsel, requested reconsideration of the denial on or about February 19, 2025, submitting reports with their consultants’ photographs of the roof, interior moisture readings, and cost of repair estimates, but the reports did not reveal evidence of covered roof damage or covered water damage, which required, under the terms of the effective policy, direct contact with water that results from rain entering the building structure due to wind.

FIE additionally submitted discovery demands inquiring as to facts supporting liability by FIE.  FIE asked plaintiff for all facts, persons with knowledge, and documents supporting his claims.  Plaintiff produced inspection reports, photographs, estimates, and invoices from plaintiff's consultants, Prime Restoration CA LLC, Global Estimates Inc., and World Class Estimates, but these estimates and inspection reports did not reveal evidence of a covered loss or a covered occurrence. Plaintiff’s responses did not identify particular property damage claimed as a covered loss or identify the cause of any property damage that could be considered a covered occurrence under the terms of his policy.

Plaintiff testified at deposition that the only issue he was aware of with respect to his roof claim were holes that were made in the ceiling by his counsel’s consultants as part of the investigation of the claim, which he had patched. Plaintiff was unaware of any problems with his roof. Plaintiff was unaware of any damage to his home caused by wind.

b.  FIE makes a sufficient prima facie showing as to both claims relating to the April 2024 incident and establishes entitlement to summary judgment.

FIE made both (a) a sufficient prima facie showing negating that plaintiff suffered a covered loss resulting from entry of the water to the covered structure caused by wind; and (b) a sufficient prima facie showing of discovery responses revealing that plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that he suffered such a covered loss. 

FIE additionally made a sufficient prima facie showing negating that FIE failed to properly investigate plaintiff’s claim.

Because plaintiff necessarily fails to carry his burden to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact, FIE is entitled to summary judgment on the breach and bad faith causes of action with respect to the April 2024 allegedly covered loss.

Conclusion

Because FIE makes a sufficient and unrefuted prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as to each of plaintiff’s claims, FIE’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

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:                 Miron, Sara vs. Porterville Lanes & Sports Center et al

Case No.:   VCU327240

Date:           June 22, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant Estate of Bill B. Long’s Demurrer to Complaint as Amended

Tentative Ruling: To find the demurrer moot by the dismissal of Defendant Estate of Bill B. Long.  

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:                 Plaza Services, LLC vs. McQueen, Petra

Case No.:   VCL307089

Date:           June 22, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. Therefore, the Court takes this hearing off calendar.

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:                Porter Vista Public Utility District, a Public Utility District vs. Guadarrama, Sergio A.

Case No.:   VCU333233

Date:           June 22, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion without prejudice

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff has filed proofs of service of the summons and complaint, and related documents, as well as this motion for preliminary injunction and its supporting papers as to each Defendant.

Defendants, however, have not yet appeared in this matter.

Plaintiff moves for preliminary injunction as to each Defendant.

Authority and Analysis

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1150, entitled “Preliminary injunctions and bonds” notes, in subsection (a), that:

“A party requesting a preliminary injunction may give notice of the request to the opposing or responding party either by serving a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 or by obtaining and serving an order to show cause (OSC). An OSC must be used when a temporary restraining order (TRO) is sought, or if the party against whom the preliminary injunction is sought has not appeared in the action. If the responding party has not appeared, the OSC must be served in the same manner as a summons and complaint.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1150(a).)

Here, both Defendants are parties against whom a preliminary injunction is sought and who have not yet appeared in this matter. As such, Plaintiff must first obtain an OSC and serve the OSC in the same manner as a summons and complaint. Because no OSC has been obtained, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

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:                Porter Vista Public Utility District, a Public Utility District vs. Childress, Darby Elaine

Case No.:  VCU333225

Date:          June 22, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion without prejudice

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff Porter Vista Public Utility District (the “District”) seeks a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and penalties against Defendant Childress.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 10, 2003, the District enacted Wastewater Ordinance No. 2003-2004-1 (the “Ordinance”) which notes it is unlawful to place, deposit, or permit waste to be deposited in any unsanitary manner, unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet or water course any sewage, industrial waste, or other polluting waters, unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage and unlawful to construct private sewage disposal systems or connect new dwellings to existing systems. (Complaint ¶5.)

Further, that the District, on information and belief, alleges Defendant constructed two sewage disposal systems on Assessor’s Parcel No. 264-010-026 and Assessor's Parcel No. 264-010-027 (the “Subject Property”) and that Defendant has maintained a privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage in violation of the Ordinance. (Complaint ¶6.)

Additionally, the District alleges it became aware of these events August 6, 2025 and, via counsel, sent a letter to Defendants alleging violations of the Ordinance. (Complaint ¶7.) However, as of October 10, 2025, the violations had not been cured and a second letter was sent. (Complaint ¶8.) Further, that on January 15, 2026, the violations remained uncured and a third letter was sent. (Complaint ¶9.)

Further, the District alleges it lacks an adequate remedy at law as to violation of the ordinance and continued use of the septic tanks rather than connection to the sewer system. (Complaint ¶11.)

The Ordinance provides that the District may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction, or both, restraining a person from continuing violations and/or for the issuance of an order stopping or disconnecting a service if the charges for that service are unpaid at the time specified in the Ordinance. (Complaint ¶12.) Further, the Ordinance permits criminal penalties up not to exceed $25,000 per day for intentional or negligent violation of the Ordinance. (Complaint ¶12.)

On April 29, 2026, the District filed this motion for preliminary injunction. The District seeks a preliminary Injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant and Defendant’s officers, agents, employees, representatives and all other persons acting in concert of participating with Defendant’s from continuing to use the sewer system and for an order to disconnect the dwelling units located on said property from the septic tank system and connect said dwelling units to the public sewage disposal system owned by the District.

The motion is based on the unverified complaint and the declaration of the manager of the District, who states that on or about July 22, 2025, the District became aware of three dwelling units on the Subject Property, two of which had not been connected to the District’s sewer system. (Declaration of Sifuentes ¶2.) Further, that declarant contacted the Tulare County Resource Management Agency and determined that in 2022, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency had authorized two permits at said location to construct “a new septic system.” (Declaration of Sifuentes ¶3.)

Further, that declarant “searched the Tulare County Recorder’s Office to determine who owned the real property” which resulted in a Grant Deed dated November 2, 2024, attached as Exhibit B, reflecting a transfer to Defendant Childress. (Declaration of Sifuentes ¶4, Ex B.)

Defendant answered the complaint and provided a declaration in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. The declaration notes Defendant was “added to the deed” in November 2024, that her elderly and medically fragile mother “retained actual possession, management and control” over the Subject Property, and that Defendant has a limited role concerning the Subject Property. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.) Further, that in August 2025, Defendant’s mother informed Defendant that all septic and sewer related matters had been previously permitted and legally addressed. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.) Defendant, thereafter, attended the District’s board meetings, following the receipt of further correspondence and have actively attempted to communicate and participate with the District’s representatives. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

The declaration further states “Additionally, we attempted to propose interim solutions while investigating the matter further. We contacted Porta Vista and offered to pay a reasonable monthly utility amount pending further review and engineering evaluation. That proposal was rejected. We were informed that an approved engineering plan would first be required.” (Declaration of Defendant Childress.) Further “During the board meetings, my husband also discussed the possibility of utilizing the city right-of-way adjacent to the property for installation of piping infrastructure. That suggestion was likewise rejected, and no mutually agreeable resolution was presented.” (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Finally, the declaration notes that “on Monday, May 11, 2026, immediately following service of the summons and complaint, my husband, Dwayne, contacted Cen Cal Engineering and spoke directly with the owner regarding the matter. Thereafter, we promptly entered into an agreement for professional engineering services related to the project. Cen Cal Engineering is currently engaged in evaluating and engineering the necessary plans in an effort to bring the property into compliance and resolve the matter in good faith and as expeditiously as reasonably possible.” (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Authority and Analysis

“The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the right claimed by him.” (Cont’l Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.) “The general purpose of such an injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action.” (Id.) “Thus, the court examines all of the material before it in order to consider ‘whether a greater injury will result to the defendant from granting the injunction than to the plaintiff from refusing it.’” (Id.)

An injunction is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 526 where, for example, it appears by the complaint that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and the relief, or any part, where the commission or continuance of some act would produce great or irreparable injury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a)(2).) Injunctive relief is available where pecuniary compensation is inadequate and where it is “extremely difficult” to ascertain adequate compensation. (Code Civ. Proc § 526(a)(4)(5).)

The burden is on plaintiff to show all elements necessary to support issuance of the injunction.  (O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)  “A superior court must evaluate two interrelated factors when ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.  (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 749.)  The court employs a more probable than not standard.  (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Ordinance noted above. However, the complaint is unverified and cannot stand as evidence in support of the Ordinance. No request for judicial notice of the Ordinance is requested. The declaration of Sifuentes does not contain an authenticated copy of the Ordinance.

Additionally, the Ordinance allegedly makes it unlawful to place, deposit, or permit waste to be deposited in any unsanitary manner, unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet or water course any sewage, industrial waste, or other polluting waters, unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage and unlawful to construct private sewage disposal systems or connect new dwellings to existing systems.

However, there is no evidence of the placement, depositing or permission of waste deposited or discharged, no evidence of construction or maintenance of any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage, or construction of private sewage disposal or connection of new dwellings.

The only evidence in support of this motion in this matter appears to be the declaration of Sifuentes, which states “That after July 22, 2025, I contacted the Tulare County Resource Management: Agency and determined that in 2022, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency had authorized two permits at said location to construct ‘a new septic system.’”

This gap in evidence appears acknowledged in the memorandum, which states:

“That Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that in 2022, the Defendants, and each of them, constructed two new private sewage disposal system (septic tank) within the District boundary and connected two new or existing dwelling to the private sewage system.

That Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that the Defendants are using the septic system which they constructed and are continuing to use the system in violation of the District Ordinance.”

The Court cannot grant the motion on information and belief, as to an Ordinance not properly before this Court and lacking evidence of a violation of the terms of the Ordinance.

Further, Plaintiff has failed to set forth what interim harm would be suffered by Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

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:                 Navarro, Gabriel vs. Bull Runner, Inc. et al

Case No.:   VCU326675

Date:           June 22, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One and (3) Requests for Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (3): To grant the motions and order initial responses due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; to impose sanctions of $650 total against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion;  Defendant shall give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (3)

On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against Defendant Bull Runner Inc. alleging motor vehicle general negligence arising out of an accident that occurred on December 23, 2023.

On January 21, 2026, Defendant served discovery requests on Plaintiff, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One.)

Responses were due no later than February 25, 2026.

No responses have been provided.

On April 29, 2026, Defendant filed these motions to compel initial responses to the discovery noted above and for $1,000 in total sanctions.

No opposition appears to have been filed.

Authority and Analysis

(1) and (2) - Interrogatories

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set of form and special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant’s first set of form interrogatories and first set of special interrogatories, within thirty days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.

(3) Requests for Production

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant’s first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.

Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,000 as to all 3 motions, indicating 4 total hours at a rate of $235 per hour plus a $60 filing fee for each motion.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, as follows: $650 consisting of 2 hours total as to these motions at the rate of $235 per hour plus $180 in filing fees. The Court notes there is no meet and confer requirement and all that is necessary to obtain the relief requested on this motion to compel initial responses is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time. Sanctions are due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.

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:               Visalia Ceramic Tile, Inc. vs. De Anza Tile Co., Inc.

Case No.:  VCU327154 

Date:          June 22, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion to Dismiss

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion to dismiss.

Visalia Ceramic Tile, Inc. (VCT) filed a first amended complaint which included an unfair competition cause of action against De Anza Tile Co. Inc. (De Anza), Richard Papapietro, and Jordon Mondragon.  Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint.  The court sustained De Anza’s demurrer to the unfair competition claim with leave to amend and sustained Mondragon’s demurrer to the unfair competition claim without leave to amend. 

Mondragon moves to dismiss VCT’s first amended complaint against him under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(1).  Subdivision (f)(1) of section 581 clearly supports dismissal of the complaint as to Mondragon in the circumstances of this case.  Under subdivision (f)(1), “after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend” as to a defendant, “and either party moves for dismissal,” “[t]he court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant.”

Mondragon’s motion is, therefore, granted. 

VCT argues the motion to dismiss should be denied because it filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint stating a “defamation/slander per se” claim against Mondragon.  By way of background, after the aforementioned demurrer rulings, VCT filed a second amended complaint, asserting claims solely against De Anza, Papapietro and 50 “Does,” but then, after that, it filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, including a new claim against Mondragon, which motion is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026. 

That VCT has moved for leave to amend to assert a new claim against Mondragon, however—irrespective of any policy of liberality in permitting amendments that may apply in the later determination of VCT’s motion for leave to amend—is immaterial to the determination of whether it is appropriate now, given the circumstances as they stand today, to dismiss the complaint as to Mondragon.  This ruling, of course, is not a predetermination of whether VCT should be granted leave to file a third amended complaint, including a new claim against Mondragon; rather, the court will reach that determination when VCT’s motion is properly before the court. 

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 June 15, 2026 and June 17, 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
VPR050740	In the Matter of Flores, Rachel	Confirm Sale Real Property	Appearance Required	Appearance required pursuant to CRC, rule 7.452
VPR053647	In the Matter of Maria Mjia	Petition for Small Estate Set-Aside	Recommended for Approval
VPR052840	In the Matter of Racca, Christine Kent	Final Distribution Hearing	Recommended for Approval	Supplement document in order
VPR052773	In the Matter of Perez, Eusebio Elizarraraz	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR053443	In the Matter of Lewis, Orville Dale	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR050199	In the Matter of Boykin, Thelma	OSC Hearing	Appearance Required	Continued hearing for missing accounting: The filed document does not comply with CRC, rule 7.575 for Accounting and Objection filed
VPR054101	In the Matter of Gundy, Gregory Dale	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommended for Approval
VPR045184	In the Matter of Chole Davis Special Needs Trust	Accounting Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR052768	In the Matter of Denham, Elsie	Status Conference	Appearance Required	Status of related case
VPR053673	In the Matter of Monty, Devon Robert	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Citation not filed. Petitioner’s Screening Form, Item 16 omitted.
VPR053900	In the Matter of Flowers, Karlen M.	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Capacity Declaration, Notice of Hearing and Citation not filed. Attachment Requesting Special Orders Regarding a Major Neurocognitive Disorder (form GC-313) not attached to petition.
VPR044298	In the Matter of Mesa, Alexander	Hearing: Transfer of Jurisdiction	Appearance Required	Review transfer of venue to Fresno County
VPR047970	In the Matter of Pineda, Francisco Javier Amaya	OSC Hearing	Appearance Required	Missing Accounting and Notice of Death

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:

                                           There is no probate calendar for June 11, 2026 and June 18, 2026

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

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302 or 1430.
 

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments

South County Justice Center & Visalia-County Civic Center

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

         Visalia- Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide; Honorable David C. Mathias

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared  June  22 - 25, 2026 that allow for posting:

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302.

Hearing Date	Dept	Case	Comments
6/22/26	Dept 9	VPR054146; IMA A.M.M.	Notice of Hearing (GC-020) has not been filed
6/22/26	Dept 1	VPR054112; IMO M.A.C	Notice of Hearing (GC-020) has not been filed indicating both Petitions have been served (Ca Rule of Ct. 7.1020(c) & Probate Code §1511)
6/23/26	Dept 1	VPR054027; IMO J.J..A.M.	Required documents have been filed
6/23/26	Dept 9	VPR051156; IMO R.R.P.	NOT LODGED- Order Appointing Guardian & Letters of Guardianship
6/23/26	Dept 9	VPR053539; IMO I.W.	NOT LODGED- Order Appointing Guardian & Letters of Guardianship
6/25/26	Dept 9	VPR054114; IMO A.G.M.P.	NOT LODGED- Order Appointing Guardian & Letters of Guardianship
6/25/26	Dept 19	PPR053987 IMO A.R.P.	Notice of Hearing (GC-020) has not been filed indicating Petition for Appointment was served pursuant to Probate Code §1511(c), re notice to grandparents Guardianship Orientation attendance declaration has not been filed DOJ Background record check appears to be outstanding
6/25/26	Dept 1	VPR053882; IMO U.S.V.	Notice of Hearing (GC-020) has not been filed indicating Petition for Appointment was served pursuant to Probate Code §1511(c), re notice to grandparents
6/25/26	Dept 19	VPR046341; IMO L.J.M.	Notice of Hearing (GC-020) has not been filed indicating Petition for Appointment was served pursuant to Probate Code §1511(c), re notice to grandparents & siblings ICWA-030 has not been filed pursuant to ProbC §1460.2