Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, May 18, 2026, are:

Re:               Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Kudsi, Anas A

Case No.:  VCL318233

Date:           May 18, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion

Facts

In this breach of contract action, Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings based on admissions deemed admitted. Plaintiff seeks the principal amount of $13,720.94 plus costs and attorneys’ fees of $1,370.

On October 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted as to the following:

1. Admit that YOU had an ACCOUNT with PLAINTIFF. (For purposes of these requests the term ACCOUNT refers to account upon which this action is based, ending in 2746, Moreover, the term PLAINTIFF refers to WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. or the assignor of the account to PLAINTIFF if the account was not opened with PLAINTIFF; the term YOU or YOUR refers to the responding party.)

2. Admit that monthly ACCOUNT statements were sent to YOU requesting minimum payments.

3. Admit that YOU never notified PLAINTIFF of a dispute involving the balance of any ACCOUNT statement.

4. Admit that as of February 18, 2025 there was a balance owing of at least $13,720.94 on the ACCOUNT.

5. Admit that since February 18, 2025 YOU have not paid this propounding party $13,720.94 or any other amount on the ACCOUNT.

6. Admit that YOU owe this propounding party at least $13,720.94 on the ACCOUNT exclusive of any amounts incurred after February 18, 2025.

7. Admit that the Consumer Credit Card Customer Agreement and Disclosure Statement Visa, applicable to the Account in this action is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.

8. Admit that “Exhibit A” contains a provision entitling the prevailing party to attorney fees.

9. Admit that YOU do not have CREDIT DEFENSE (for purposes of these requests, CREDIT DEFENSE refers to any debt cancellation agreement between YOU and PLAINTIFF wherein PLAINTIFF has agreed to cancel any portion of a debt YOU owe on your ACCOUNT).

10. If YOU have CREDIT DEFENSE, admit that YOU do not qualify for its benefits.

11. Admit that the affirmative defenses you have asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.

Plaintiff indicates an attempt to meet and confer with Defendant. No opposition to the motion appears filed.

Meet and Confer

“Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).)

Authorities and Analysis

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is used to challenge a pleading in the same manner as a general demurrer, i.e., the challenged pleading (1) establishes that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or (2) does not allege facts sufficient to support a cause of action or defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1), see International Assn. of Firefighters v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4^th 1179,1196; Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group (2008) 162 Cal.App.4^th 1193, 1202.)  Like a demurrer, the grounds for this motion must appear on the face of the pleading or be based on facts capable of judicial notice, including court records.  (See Bufil, at 1202; Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 978, 986, and fn. 6.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks judgment on the basis of its requests for admissions, deemed admitted by the Court. A “deemed admitted order established, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Further, this motion may be based upon “matters properly the subject to judicial notice.” (Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas (1995) 50 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) Judicial notice may be taken “of a party’s admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admissions “cannot reasonably be controverted,’ such as in answer to interrogatories or request for admissions, or in affidavits and declaration filed on the party’s behalf.” (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.)

Breach of Contract

To establish a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of the contract, (2) Plaintiffs' performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants' breach, and (4) the resulting damage to Plaintiff." (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Here, the first element is met by Request Nos. 1 and 2.

The second element is met by Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

The third element is met by Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The fourth element is met by No. 6.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and will enter judgment as requested.

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:               Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Aceves, Yvette M

Case No.:   VCL326164

Date:           May 18, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-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 December 30, 2025, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to the address 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:                Munger Bros., LLC vs. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.

Case No.:  VCU311567

Date:           May 18, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendants’ Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey R. Baron

Tentative Ruling: To continue the hearing as to the application of attorney Jeffrey R. Baron of Bailey & Glasser LLP to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants to June 1, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 9.

Facts and Analysis

The Court’s file has only the notice of motion and motion, the proof of service and the proposed order, but lacks the verified application of Baron as to the requirements of California Rule of Court 9.40. Therefore, the Court continues this matter to June 1, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 9.

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:                Ureche, Oakes J. vs. Six-Gs Automotive, Inc.

Case No.:  VCU314153

Date:           May 18, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Six-G’s Automotive, (2) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Six-G’s Automotive, (3) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd, (4) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd; and for sanctions.

Tentative Ruling:

(1) through (2): To grant the motions and compel initial responses no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; to impose sanctions in the amount of $350 against Defendant Six-G’s Automotive; sanctions due no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

(3) and (4) To find the motions to compel responses moot by the service of responses on May 1, 2026 and May 4, 2026; to impose sanctions in the amount of $350 against Defendant Groppetti Ltd and counsel of record, jointly and severally; sanctions due no thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (4)

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint brings a number of Labor Code and Business and Professions Code causes of action on a classwide basis and seeks penalties under PAGA.

On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff served his Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) upon Defendants Six-G’s Automotive and Groppetti Ltd.

On May 27, 2025, Defendants emailed Plaintiff and stated it is working towards responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. On May 30, 2025, Defendants requested an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Set One, until June 6, 2025, which Plaintiff granted.

On June 6, 2025, Defendants requested a two-week extension to respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Set One, which Plaintiff granted, to June 20, 2025.

On June 20, 2025, Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery:

“Defendant’s counsel…stated it was his understanding that “we were attempting to move this case towards mediation to save all the parties the expense of formal litigation. All other Plaintiff’s counsel have agreed to stay formal discovery in lieu of an agreement to proceed with an informal exchange of all necessary information to prepare this case for mediation.” Additionally, Defendant stated, “while it was my understanding we had already agreed to proceed in the same manner in this case, I would now propose such an agreement.”

However, Plaintiff indicates that they have not conceded to refrain from formal discovery pending mediation.

Parties agreed to mediate this matter and participate in an informal discovery exchange ahead of the mediation. Plaintiff agreed to refrain from filing a motion to compel responses to his discovery until after the mediation, if necessary, to conserve the Parties’ and the court’s time and resources.

On July 29, 2025, the Parties scheduled mediation with mediator Steve Serratore, set for April 20, 2026. As Defendants did not provide any of Plaintiff’s requested information prior to mediation, neither did Defendants provide an update on whether it will be complying with Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff cancelled mediation on the date of the mediator’s cancellation deadline.

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to compel initial responses to the discovery noted above, as well as $1,543.75 in sanctions as to each motion.

In opposition, Defendant Groppetti indicates responses to interrogatories were served May 1, 2026 and responses to requests for production were served May 4, 2026. Further, Defendant Groppetti argues these motions (Nos. 3 and 4 above) are moot and that sanctions should be denied on the basis that “The attorney who previously handled this matter for Groppetti left Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and failed to advise anyone that these responses were pending.”

No opposition or responses, however, appears to have been filed by Defendant Six G’s Automotive as to Nos. 1 and 2.

Authority and Analysis

(1) Interrogatories – Six G’s Automotive

Based on Defendant Six G’s Automotive’s failure to respond to the first set of special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Defendant Six G’s Automotive provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Plaintiff shall give notice.

(2) Requests for Production – Six G’s Automotive

Based on Defendant Six G’s Automotive’s Defendant’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 Defendant provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiff shall give notice.

(3) and (4) - Interrogatories and Requests for Production – Groppetti Ltd

The Court agrees that service of the responses May 1, 2026 and May 4, 2024 renders the motion to compel initial responses as to (3) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd and (4) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd moot.

Sanctions

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will impose sanctions as follows:

• $350 as to Defendant Six-G’s Automotive; and
• $350 as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd and counsel of record, jointly and severally.

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. Further, that a single handling attorney in a large firm failed to prepare responses or inform others that responses were due does not constitute an unjust imposition of a sanction.

Sanctions are due no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to 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.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Monday, May 18, 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
VPR054013	In the Matter of Guerrero, Aurelio Acuna	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	1. Notice not given to the Personal Representative of Estate of Spouse, CRC rule 7.51 2. Bond Waiver not filed by the Personal Representative of Estate of Spouse, Prob C § 8481(a)(2) 3. Petition Item 3b: If a citizen of a foreign country dies without leaving a will, notice shall be given to a recognized diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country, Prob C § 8113 4. Proof of Publication not filed, Prob C § 8120
VPR054032	In the Matter of Heater, James	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Petition Item 8c:  DE-300 not attached as required in Probate C § 13152(e)
VPR054019	In the Matter of Cunningham, Ted Landon	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommended for Approval
VPR054018	In the Matter of Call, Pamella Janette	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommended for Approval
VPR054035	In the Matter of Ortega, Pablo	Petition for Order to Set Aside Small Estate	Appearance Required	Documents in order The court to consider Prob C § 6609(b)
VPR054017	In the Matter of Jobe Family Trust Dated October 9, 2020	Petition to Confirm Trust Asset	Approval Conditional	Approval upon review of proposed order to be submitted
VPR053124	In the Matter of Palomino, Roberta	Final Distribution Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR053585	In the Matter of Drew, Kathleen Stroben	Final Distribution Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR053958	In the Matter of Lara, Emily Alejandra	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Live Scan, Orientation and Investigation not completed

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Thursday, May 14, 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
PPR054028	In the Matter of Yraceburu, Richard Joseph	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
PPR053310	In the Matter of Long, Beverly Jane	Final Distribution Hearing	Approval Conditional	Approval upon review of proposed order to be submitted