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 Friday, February 6, 2026, are:
Re: Penn Ghilarducci, Jeffrey vs. Campos, Tara
Case No.: PCL329898
Date: February 6, 2026
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment
Tentative Ruling: To inquire as to Defendant’s ability to pay per diem rent for the 40 day proposed stay.
Facts
This unlawful detainer matter proceeded to trial on February 3, 2026. Judgment for possession, cancellation of rental agreement and monetary award of $8,708.00 was entered in favor of Plaintiff on the same date. No writ of possession has issued.
On February 4, 2026, Defendant filed this ex parte motion to stay execution of the judgment. In support, Defendant declares a requests of a stay of 40 days, that she does not have alterative housing, that she lost her job on September 1, 2025, that on December 1, 2025 she was placed on disability due to stress and on February 13, 2023 she was involved in a car accident causing diagnosed brain injury and this limits the ability to immediately relocate. (Declaration of Defendant ¶¶1-11.)
Service on Plaintiff’s counsel occurred via voicemail as indicated in the moving papers.
No opposition appears filed.
Authority and Analysis
Defendant seeks to stay execution of the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 918. While section 918 contains no express grounds to issue a discretionary stay, equitable or hardship issues may be considered. Defendant has provided a sufficient basis for hardship based on her job loss, medical condition and inability to secure alternative housing.
“If the judgment would be stayed on appeal only by posting an undertaking…the maximum §918 stay on execution…[is] thus, ordinarily a maximum 40-day stay on enforcement of limited civil case UD judgments…” California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraph 9:427 (Rutter Group 2021).)
Thus, the Court may enter a stay of up to only 40 days in this matter, as requested by Defendant.
Any stay is typically conditioned on payment of per diem rent during the period of the stay (California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Paragraph 9:426 (Rutter Group 2021).) The complaint alleges $52 per day in rent.
The Court, however, will inquire as to what per day amount Defendant reasonably can afford to effectuate the stay.
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.