Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, June 8, 2026, are:

Re:                 Perez, Sabrina Veronica vs. Gomez, Jennifer

Case No.:  VCL296115

Date:           June 8, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motions for (1) Sanctions; (2) To Continue the Settlement Conference; and (3) To Compel Responses to Discovery

Tentative Ruling: On May 11, 2026, this Court deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and, following an evidentiary hearing, entered an order requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking in the amount of $25,000 within 30 days in order to proceed with this action and entered a prefiling order under section 391.7 requiring approval of the Presiding Judge from filing any new litigation.

“If an order to furnish security is issued, the action is automatically stayed from the time the motion was filed until 10 days after the plaintiff posts the required security.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.6.) Therefore, this action is stayed pending the posting of the security or expiration of the 30 day period in which to post the security.

As such, the Court continues these motions to June 15, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 9 after the expiration of the 30 day period.  

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:                Velocity Investments vs. Macilvaine, Julia

Case No.:  VCL310276

Date:           June 8, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

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

Facts

On or about August 28, 2024, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to the address stated 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:                Mariner Finance, LLC vs. Navarro, Maria O

Case No.:  VCL323846

Date:           June 8, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. The Court, therefore, 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:                Torres, Bersabed vs. Ventura Coastal, LLC

Case No.:   VCU319885

Date:           June 8, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:      Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Background Facts

In this matter, VCU319885, Plaintiff has filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself  and others similarly situated for various violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code (the “Class Action Case”) as follows:

(1) Unpaid Overtime (Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198); (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a)); (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums (Labor Code § 226.7); (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages (Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197 and 1197.1); (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid (Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203); (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment (Labor Code §§ 204 and 210); (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Labor Code §226(a)); and (8) Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Plaintiff alleges in the Class Action Case that Defendant regularly required its employees to work off-the-clock without compensation, prohibited employees from accurately recording the actual time worked and failed to correctly calculate overtime pay at the regular rate of pay, thereby failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages and that Defendant routinely failed to relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over employees during their meal and rest periods. Therefore, Defendant did not timely pay these employees during employment or separation, further rendering their wage statements inaccurate.

On August 27, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of related cases, indicating that Plaintiff had also filed VCU324072, a Private Attorney General Act case on behalf  aggrieved employees only (the “PAGA Case”)

In the PAGA Case, the underlying claims include:

(1) failure to pay all minimum wages (Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198, et seq.); (2) failure to pay all overtime wages (Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1194 and 1198, et seq.); (3) failure to provide legally required meal periods/failure to pay an additional hour of premium pay for meal period violations (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (4) failure to provide legally required rest periods/failure to pay an additional hour of premium pay for rest period violations (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (5) failure to timely pay all wages owed at the end of employment (Labor Code § 203); (6) failure to pay all wages owed during employment (Labor Code § 204); (7) failure to furnish complete, accurate, itemized wage statements (Labor Code § 226); (8) failure to maintain accurate records relating to work periods, meal periods, total daily hours, hours per pay period, total wages and compensation, and applicable pay rates (Labor Code § 1174(d) and the applicable IWC Wage Order); and (9) failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses (Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802)

Plaintiff alleges in the PAGA Case that Defendant regularly required its employees to work off-the-clock without compensation, prohibited employees from accurately recording the actual time worked and failed to correctly calculate overtime pay at the regular rate of pay, thereby failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages and that Defendant routinely failed to relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over employees during their meal and rest periods. Further, that Defendant failed to reimburse employees for mileage or travel expenses between job locations, expenses for the use of a personal cell phone for work-related purposes, and for non-slip shoes required for the job. As a result, Defendant did not timely pay these employees during employment nor upon separation, and all wage statements and records provided to these employees were inaccurate.

On September 11, 2025, Defendant filed this notice of motion and motion to consolidate the Class Action Case and the PAGA Case.

On November 4, 2025, the Court signed the order consolidating these matters, noting in its prior tentative ruling on November 3, 2025 that:

“Here, the substantive elements of section 1048(a) appear to be met, given the overlapping representation of employees given the definition of the Class Members and aggrieved employees, the same Plaintiff, same Defendant and nearly identical Labor Code violations. The Court further notes it adjudicates cases involving both class action and PAGA claims regularly. This fits squarely within the “common issues” requirement of section 1048(a).”

The Court will refer to the Class Action Case and PAGA Case as the “Consolidated Cases” hereinafter.

Facts as to Additional Consolidation of Case No. VCU332388

Via this motion, Defendant seeks to consolidate the Consolidated Cases with Bersabed Torres v. Ventura Coastal, LLC and Alisa Montes, Case Number VCU332388, filed March 9, 2026, a case involving individual discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims (hereinafter the “Discrimination Case”)

Pursuant to Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court, on March 30, 2026, Ventura filed and served Notices of Related Cases relating to the Consolidated Cases and the Discrimination Case.

Defendant argues that both actions include common questions of law or fact as the parties are nearly identical (aside from naming Defendant Alisa Montes personally in the Discrimination Case) and the claims alleged arise from the same employment relationship and time period. Defendant argues that, for consolidation, the cases need only share a single common question of law or fact.

Further, Defendant argues both cases involves that the terms and conditions of the employment; work schedule and job duties; the hours worked; Defendant’s compensation policies; Defendant’s wage and hour practices and policies; and the identities and conduct of supervisors and decision-makers.

Additionally, that consolidation will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary costs and avoid inconsistent rulings. Finally, that no party will be prejudiced by consolidation.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues, chiefly, that the Discrimination Case contains no wage and hour claims of any kind, that there is little, if any, crossover as to discovery or witnesses and notes that resolution of the Consolidated Cases will not affect the Discrimination Case in any manner.

Authority and Analysis

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subd. (a), “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court…it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

“A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)  “Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Id. at 1149.) Consolidation “is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial [court].”  Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

Here, the Court finds that the purposes of consolidation would not be served by including the Discrimination Case into the Consolidated Case, as the Discrimination Case involves different claims unique to Torres alone and Torres’ individual experiences while working for Defendant based on Torres’ physical disabilities. As such, the cases do not appear to arise from common questions of law or fact. Wage and hour violations are distinct from discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims based on physical disability.

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. 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; Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared June 8 - 9, 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
VPR054060	In the Matter of Palomera Bravo, Hector Noe	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	1. Notice of Hearing to minor must be sent to the person or persons having legal custody of the minor, with whom the minor resides, CRC Rule 7.51(d)  2. Possible issue: the appropriate publication may be the Porterville Recorder, Prob C § 8121(b)
VPR054084	In the Matter of Ford, Donald Eugene	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Petition Item 8: Decedent died after April 1, 2022, DE-300 not attached as required by Probate Code § 13152(e)
VPR054079	In the Matter of O'Dell, Lewis Arlin	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	Proposed Order Item 7a: not completed to reflect the petition requesting confirmation of property belonging to the surviving spouse
VPR054074	In the Matter of Maness, Richard Stanley	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 7 omitted: the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that the estate is property passing to the surviving spouse necessary to establish the community property or quasi-community property claim, Prob C § 13651(a)(3), (4)  2. Notice of Hearing not served on a party, Prob C § 13655
VPR053927	In the Matter of Freitas 2015 Revocable Trust	Petition to Establish Trust Ownership	Recommended for Approval
VPR052840	In the Matter of Racca, Christine Kent	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Petition, paragraph 6 and 8: Specifying the Date of Notice to Director of Health Services and Franchise Tax Board omitted, Prob C § 9100 2. Petition, paragraph 12:  Schedule A- Income Receipts and Schedule D- Losses on Sales not attached: When accounting is waived and the amount other than the amount of the Inventory and Appraisal is used as a basis for calculating statutory fees, detailed schedules of receipts and gains or losses on sale are required in report pursuant to CRC, rule 7.550(b)(6)
VPR051991	In the Matter of Medina, Gilbert	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Proposed Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account (Form MC-355) to be submitted 2. Creditor’s Claim filed by Phillips & Cohen Associates obo LendingClub Bank not satisfied or addressed in petition, CRC rule 7.401
VPR054080	In the Matter of Subejano, Psalm Ramos	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing not filed
VPR051993	In the Matter of Mcdonald, Lola	OSC Hearing	Appearance Required	Proof of Posting Bond, Inventory & Appraisal, Accounting and Care Plan not filed
VPR048775	In the Matter of Hansen, Leann	Accounting Hearing; Attorney's Fees	Appearance Required	Documents in order
PPR052216	In the Matter of Tilden, Weltha May	Accounting Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR051898	In the Matter of Beauprey, Donna	Accounting Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Thursday, June 4, 2026, that allow for posting:

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
PPR052335	In the Matter of Ferguson, Ada	Confirm Sale Real Property	Recommended for approval	Note, the Declarant indicates the publication was for NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER OF ESTATE but other than this discrepancy, publication is in order.
PPR052593	In the Matter of Carranza, Raul Jr.	Letters of Administration	Appearance required	Pending proof of service in Mexico for the competing petition
PPR052972	In the Matter of Mora, Erick Geovanni	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Amended Confidential Conservator Screening forms need to be filed, all questions to be answered. No Temporary Orders & Temporary Letters lodged
PPR053031	In the Matter of Rickman, Leo M.	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance required	Petition is missing attachments, Exhibits A-C
PPR053138	In the Matter of The Randall S. Cline Living Trust u/d/t June 17, 2003	Status Conference	Appearance required
PPR054071	In the Matter of Siterlet, Lorraine M.	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommended for approval	UPDATED AT 2:50PM 6/3/26. issues resolved
PPR054075	In the Matter of McCue, Patricia Louise	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	All co-executors/co-trustees should be party to this action and verification to be signed; sole petitioner requests 25% interest be distributed to one party. The fraction or percentage that will pass to each petitioner must be set forth. Needs statement saying the real property was the decedent’s primary residence, ProbC§13152(a)(2).
PPR054082	In the Matter of Clawson, Richard	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	The estate asset appears to be a parcel of real property, not the primary residence, left out of the Trust. Additional note- see street address name in Notice of hearing.
PPR054091	In the Matter of Gilmer, Carol	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Matter appears to be in order
PPR054092	In the Matter of Gilmer, Allen	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Matter appears to be in order