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 Visalia probate matter listed below you may contact the Visalia Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #2342. For further information regarding a SCJC probate matter listed below you may contact the SCJC 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.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Wednesday, December 17, 2025, are:
Re: Mackay, Phuong Le vs. Tulare County Federal Credit Union
Case No.: PCU328395
Date: December 17, 2025
Time: 1:30 P.M.
Dept. 21-The Honorable Douglas W. Rodgers
Motion: Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application Adopt and Extend/Re-Issue TRO, Reset OSC RE: Prelim Injunction, OSC RE Contempt
Tentative Ruling: To inquire as to service of this ex parte application; if served, the Court intends to issue a modified TRO, set the OSC re: preliminary injunction for January 6, 2026, 1:30 pm, Dept. 19, order the opposition due no later than December 24, 2025, order the reply due no later than December 31, 2025.
Facts
The verified complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, wrongful foreclosure, Civil Code section 2943, unfair competition, declaratory relief and Civil Code section 2924.13.
The complaint names Tulare County Federal Credit Union and TD Processing Service, Inc. as Defendants.
The complaint was initially filed in Frenso County, but transferred here on November 21, 2025.
Plaintiffs, on October 17, 2025, filed an “Ex-Parte and Application for: an Order to Show Cause; a Temporary Restraining Order RE Preliminary and Permanent injunction and quiet title relief”
The court in Fresno County, on November 14, 2025 “extend[ed] the TRO to 12/11/2025…”
This Court, however, lacks a copy of this TRO, which the Court notes has expired as of the date of this hearing.
On December 11, 2025, filed this ex parte application to adopt and extend/re-issue the TRO via anew OSC hearing, to reset the OSC re: preliminary injunction for the earliest available date, maintain the status quo by halting any foreclosure sale, compel Defendants to endorse checks and “determine whether a violation has occurred…: Issue an Order to Show Cause directing Defendant to appear and explain why their conduct does not violate the stay/TRO; and After hearing, determine whether the Court’s order has been violated and, if so, impose such remedies or sanctions as the Court deems just, including orders compelling compliance and restraining further violations.”
Plaintiffs seek the issuance of the TRO/preliminary injunction based on breach of implied covenant, Civil Code § 2943, and Civil Code § 2924.13.
The declaration in support thereof states that Plaintiffs reside at 980 Laurel Avenue, Lindsay, CA 93247, where the junior lienholder is Defendant Tulare County Federal Credit Union (TCFCU) and the trustee is TD Processing Service, Inc. (Declaration ¶1.) Plaintiff indicates that in March 2023, the residence was damaged by a flood, that “NFIP issued loss-draft checks requiring lienholder endorsement for repairs. The USDA (first lien) requires a restricted repair escrow account for the funds to be deposited into, but TCFCU repeatedly refused to endorse for claimed technical reasons at first then retaliation for non-payment later, causing repeated check expirations, including the final one.” (Declaration ¶2.)
Further, that:
“Defendant TCFCU agreed to a five-month period moratorium from March to August 2023 after the flood. Plaintiffs were promised to be given a copy of the moratorium agreement but never actually received it. Later on, during communication via email on 09/13/2024, Damian Alvarez from TCFCU claimed the Credit Union only granted a three-month payment extension from May to August 2023, not five-month as we had agreed and noted. During and after that moratorium, we made multiple (approximately 10-month worth of non consecutive payments) but TCFCU failed to properly apply them. We requested an amortization schedule and payment history verbally over phone calls, during home visits without any notice given by Collection Manager Damian Alvarez, and in writing, but did not receive the statutory information.” (Declaration ¶3.)
Additionally, that “Fresno Superior Court extended our TRO through December 11, 2025. After venue transferred to Tulare, no OSC/PI date was set. During the time TRO is in effect, as early as 11/28/2025, I noticed there’s an auction for the property schedule for 12/18/2025. On the trustee’s public posting (Nationwide Posting & Publication) for TS No. 2025-10161, I observed the sale status reading “Postponed to: 12/18/2025 by Beneficiary’s request,” with the sale location at Entrance to City Hall, 411 East Kern Avenue, Tulare, CA 93274, at 2:00 PM.”
The Court notes that this ex parte application expressly seeks adjudication as to breach of implied covenant, Civil Code section 2943, and Civil Code section 2924.13 causes of action.
The Court notes no proof of service of the summons and complaint, and no proof of service of this ex parte application.
Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading to the verified complaint and have not appeared in this matter.
Service of this Ex Parte Application
As noted above, the Court lacks a proof of service of this ex parte application, Therefore, the Court must inquire first as to service.
If service was provided, the Court is prepared to rule as follows.
Adopt / Extend Prior TRO
“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, Defendants have not appeared in this matter and Plaintiffs seek a TRO and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, therefore, must obtain and serve an OSC.
The Court’s understanding is that the purpose of issuing the TRO is to maintain the status quo until a hearing on the preliminary injunction may take place, in this case through obtaining and serving an OSC.
Plaintiffs indicate that the Fresno Court issued the TRO and extended it to December 11, 2025, but that when this matter was transferred to Tulare County, no OSC was issued, no OSC could be therefore be served and no hearing as to the preliminary injunction was set.
The Court views these papers as requesting that this Court issue an OSC re: preliminary injunction so that Plaintiffs may serve Defendants, that the Court set a preliminary injunction hearing date and that, until that has occurred, to re-issue or continue the TRO that was initially in place.
The Court, therefore, is inclined to maintain the status quo and issue a TRO.
As to the proposed TRO, the Court will strike No. 3.
The Court will not require a bond as to the TRO.
As to the OSC, the Court sets the OSC re: preliminary injunction for January 6, 2026, 1:30 pm, Dept. 19.
The opposition shall be due no later than December 24, 2025.
Any reply shall be due no later than December 31, 2025.
As to the proposed OSC, the Court will strike No. 4, having issued a TRO above and will modify No. 5 to require personal service of this OSC, the moving papers and the TRO. The Court will strike No. 6.
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.