Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, March 17, 2026, are:

Re:                Reyes, Roque vs. Saleh, Faiz H. et al

Case No.:   VCU322445

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Defendants’ Counsel’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel as to Defendants (1) Rasha Saleh and (2) Faiz H. Saleh

Tentative Ruling: (1) and (2): To grant the motions; the orders will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of proof of personal service of the order as indicated herein.

Facts Common to (1) and (2)

On February 9, 2026, Defendants’ Counsel Rachelle Golden filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Defendants (1) Rasha Saleh and (2) Faiz H. Saleh. Defendants’ Counsel filed the following with respect to withdrawing as to each Defendant:

(1) MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel;

(2) MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and

(3) MC-053 - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Additionally, Defendants’ Counsel has filed proof of service of these documents by mail.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; [or] 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) requires that the “notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”

As noted above, counsel has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) by submitting the notice and motion on MC-051 as to each Defendant and by directing the notice and motion to all parties.

California Rule of Court 3.1362 (c) further mandates that: “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). Specifically, the declaration that Rule 3.1362(c) requires must state that the moving attorney attempted to secure a “Substitution of Attorney” from the client as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) and that the client refused to so stipulate.

Here, the declaration is properly made on form MC-052, as well as a supplemental declaration attached to the Notice, and uses general terms without compromising confidentiality and indicates counsel has been unable to contact both Defendants for several months.

Next, service under Rule 3.1362(d) requires personal service, electronic service, or mail and counsel’s declaration must note the service made. Here, service was by mail on February 9, 2026. The declaration of counsel indicate that service occurred at the last known address.

Finally, Rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed order be lodged with the Court on MC-053 with the moving papers, specifying all hearing dates scheduled, including date of trial. Defendants’ Counsel has complied with this requirement.

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as to Defendants (1) Rasha Saleh and (2) Faiz H. Saleh. If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the order entitled “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil” that the moving party lodged with the Court.  This order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of a proof of personal service of the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to Defendants (1) Rasha Saleh and (2) Faiz H. Saleh.

The Court further directs counsel to attach to the Order an additional notice of the date, time, and Department of this court for any future hearing dates for this case as calendared.

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.

Re:                King, Tracy vs. Sequoia Surgery Center et al

Case No.:  VCU319369

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Defendant Sequioa Surgery Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: The Court’s file reflects no summary judgment filed by Defendant Sequioa Surgery Center. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant Sequioa Surgery Center has filed a reply. The Court continues the hearing on this matter to April 14, 2026. Defendant Sequioa Surgery Center is ordered to refile the motion which was apparently received by all other parties by March 19, 2026. As Plaintiff has responded to the original motion, and Defendant Sequioa Surgery Center has filed a reply, no further filings are necessary. The Court will issue a tentative ruling for the April 14, 2026 hearing.

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.

Re:                Ramirez, Carlos Alberto vs. Ramirez, Ramon

Case No.:  VCU326099

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion as moot, as a first amended complaint was filed January 16, 2026.

Facts

After the Court sustained a demurrer to the initial complaint, Plaintiff, on January 16, 2026, filed a first amended complaint alleging cause of action for Deceit,  Conversion of Property, Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Contract, and Specific Performance.

On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a “first amended complaint.”

The Court cannot discern a difference between the January 16, 2026 filing and the proposed amended complaint attached to the January 27, 2026 filing.

Absent identification of the changes between the operative January 16, 2026 first amended complaint and the January 27, 2026 proposed amended complaint, 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.

Re:              Luviano-Torres, Angelina Monique vs. San Joaquin Valley College, Inc. et al

Case No.:     VCU317367

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. The Court, therefore, takes it 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.

Re:                Rhyne, Teresa Rena vs. Villagana Barajas, Crystal

Case No.:   VCU321280

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:      Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion as to this hearing date. The Court, therefore, takes it 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.

Re:                Zuniga, Nora vs. Ruiz Foods Exports, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU311139

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:      Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative Ruling: The Court does not issue tentative rulings on these motions. Counsel may appear in any manner.

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.

Re:                Velocity Investments Llc Vs. Lopez, Enrique

Case No.:  PCL296687

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Motion re: Claim of Exemption

Tentative Ruling: To grant the claim of exemption; to hold the hearing.  

Facts

On February 20, 2026, the Los Angeles Sherrif’s Department (Levying Officer) filed a memorandum to this Court indicating that Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lopez, on January 29, 2026, submitted a claim of exemption as to a “checking account from Bank of America” as Lopez is living paycheck to paycheck and the money in the account is for essentials. The financial statement in support of the claim indicates net monthly pay of $2,784, expenses of $2,780, that the checking account contains $750, that Lopez has other debts, and that Defendant has contacted Resurgence Legal Group, PC and arranged a payment plan.

Lopez further states the property is exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.220.

Judgment Creditor opposes the exemption stating:

“However, Judgment Debtor fails to provide any documents, such as bank statements, evidencing the source of the levied funds. Therefore, Judgment Debtor has failed to meet their burden of proof that any funds in the account are exempt as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 703.580(b). Said section states, "At a hearing under this section, the exemption claimant has the burden of proof." Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 703.580(b). It is well established case law that where a Judgment Debtor files a claim of exemption, they must provide evidence sufficient to overcome their burden.”

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 703.580 states, in part:

(b) At a hearing under this section, the exemption claimant has the burden of proof.

(c) The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If a claim of exemption asserts that money in a judgment debtor’s deposit account is or was necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor as provided in Section 704.225, the court shall review the judgment debtor’s financial statement and make findings thereon. If not satisfied, the court may order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.

(d) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine by order whether or not the property is exempt in whole or in part.

(1) Subject to Section 703.600, the order is determinative of the right of the judgment creditor to apply the property to the satisfaction of the judgment.

(2) Where the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 683.110, the court shall order the return of any property that was exempt without the need for a claim and that was levied upon within the 12 months preceding the date of the order on the claim of exemption. This paragraph does not limit a judge’s authority to order, for good cause, the return of any exempt property taken more than 12 months preceding the date of the order on the claim of exemption.

(3) Where the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 683.110, the court shall order the return of any property that the debtor has demonstrated would have been exempt by claim of exemption and that was levied upon within the six months preceding the date of the order on the claim of exemption. This paragraph does not limit a judge’s authority to order, for good cause, the return of any exempt property taken more than six months preceding the date of the order on the claim of exemption.

(4) If property is exempt without the need for a claim under this title or as a result of a claim of exemption, the court shall order the return of the exempt property from the levying officer, judgment creditor, or other person who is in possession of the property, to the judgment debtor. A levying officer shall return the exempt property within 20 business days of receipt of notice of the order. A judgment creditor shall return the exempt property within 10 business days of entry of the order.

As to the exemptions, O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 553, 559-560 notes:

“California's Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) generally authorizes a creditor holding a “money judgment” to “enforce[]” that judgment against “all property of the judgment debtor” through a “writ of execution.” (§§ 695.010, subd. (a), 699.710.) However, to implement our Constitution's command that “a certain portion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families” be “protect[ed], by law, from forced sale” (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 1.5), our Legislature has exempted various items of property from levy by creditors with money judgments. (See §§ 704.010–704.210 [setting forth exemptions]; see generally Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Shill (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1058 [142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414] [*560]  (Sourcecorp) [so noting].) The debtor bears the burden of establishing that a particular exemption applies. (§ 703.580, subd. (b); Schwartzman v. Wilshinsky (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 619, 626)”

Specifically, section 704.220 states:

“(a) Money in the judgment debtor’s deposit account in an amount equal to or less than the minimum basic standard of adequate care for a family of four for Region 1, established by Section 11452 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and as annually adjusted by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 11453 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is exempt without making a claim.”

According to Judicial Council Form EJ-156, the section 704.220 exemption is $2,244. As such, the $750 in the subject account would appear to be exempt as a matter of law under section 704.220, without a need to trace the source thereof and without additional showing of proof by Lopez.

As such, the Court’s tentative ruling is to grant the claim. The Court, however, observes that this determination appears to be made only after holding the hearing.

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.

Re:                 JB Cattle Holdings LLC vs. Fancher, Jesse et al

Case No.:   PCL326980

Date:            March 17, 2026

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Defendant Zac Fancher’s Motion to Quash

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion; to order Defendant Zac Fancher to file a responsive pleading no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing.

Facts

In this complaint for unlawful detainer, Plaintiff, on October 23, 2025, applied for an order to post the summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.45. Plaintiff provided a declaration as to due diligence in attempting to personally serve Defendants.

The Court, on October 23, 2025, ordered service of the summons and complaint as to, amongst other Defendants, Defendant Zac Fancher, via posting at 19301 Campbell Creek Drive, Springville, California 93265 and that the documents be sent via certified mail.

On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating service on Defendant Zac Fancher had occurred by “posting the documents on the premises at 19301 Campbell Creek Drive, Springville, CA 93265 on 01/23/2026 at 1:27 PM, and mailing copies to the Defendant on 01/23/2026 at 2:10 PM from Porterville, CA via Certified Mail, Certified Mail Label # 9589 0710 5270 0309 3733 07.”

On October 29, 2025, Defendant removed this action to federal court.

On November 4, 2025, this matter was remanded to this court.

On February 11, 2026, Defendant Zac Fancher filed this motion to quash service of the summons and complaint and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1).

Defendant states in a declaration that “It is a fact that Plaintiff JB CATTLE HOLDINGS failed to timely serve its summons and complaint, thereby missing the deadline by forty days and delayed one hundred day after filing its complaint against Defendants Zac and Jesse Fancher.” (Declaration of Fancher ¶3.) Defendant’s motion argues that the complaint was filed October 15, 2025, that on or about January 23, 2026, Plaintiff served a summons and complaint by way of U.S. Postal Service and exactly one hundred days after filing its complaint on 10/15/2025 and citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1167.1.

In opposition, Plaintiff notes the declaration of due diligence as to attempts at personal service attached to the October 23, 2025 application

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 1167.1 states:

“If proof of service of the summons has not been filed within 60 days of the complaint’s filing, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice.”

Section 1167.1 is a discretionary statute which does not require dismissal simply on the showing of the failure to file a proof of service.

Further, here, Plaintiff attempted personal service prior to seeking the order to post and mail, and thereafter posted and mailed the summons and complaint, within approximately one week of filing the complaint.

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.210 and 583.240 have no application here where three years have not passed since the filing of the case.

The Court denies the motion and orders Defendant Zac Fancher to file a responsive pleading no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing.

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.

Re:                RENFRO, MARGIE M vs. PRIME TOWING & TRANSPORT, INC, et al

Case No.:   PCU317211

Date:           March 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Injunction

Tentative Ruling: To deny the application

Facts

After a demurrer to the third amended complaint, the only remaining claim in this matter is the fourth cause of action for negligence under Vehicle Code section 22651.07 as against Defendants Prime Towing and Transportation, Inc and Aivers Delatorre.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants towed a trailer owned by Plaintiff and failed to to provide a copy of the towing and storage fees and access notice to any owner or operator of a stored vehicle (Vehicle Code section 22651.07(a)(2)), failed to provide an itemized invoice to the vehicle owner or their agent (Vehicle Code section 22651.07(b)), failed to permit a vehicle owner or their agent to receive personal property, inspect the vehicle without paying a fee, and request a copy of the fee and access notice (Vehicle Code section 22651.07(c)(1), (3), (4)).

Exhibit 8 attached to the Second Amended Complaint and incorporated herein, indicates an issue date of June 5, 2024 as to the certificate of title. (SAC – Ex. 8)

Plaintiff alleges a third encounter in March 2025 wherein Plaintiff’s agent was permitted to retrieve personal property and inspect the Trailer but “requested a bill under the code and was denied” as to the “Towing and Storage Fees and Access Notice” under Vehicle Code section 22651.07(c)(4). (TAC 18:21-25.)

On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed this ex parte application for the issuance of an injunction to the City of Tulare, custodian of records, to preserve body cam video  by Officer Dolan Badge 67 recorded March 24, 2025.

Plaintiff has lodged a copy of a subpoena dated March 6, 2026 seeking “March 13, 2025 Body Cam footage of service call at 1250 S O St, Tulare, CA 93274, By Tulare City Police (Body Cam Footage) Case 2514332, Officer Dolan Badge 67.” There is no proof of service as to the subpoena, no indication of prepayment of fees and seeks delivery of the records to M Jennings on April 11, 2026, 1:00 pm at 1361 S Cardoza, Tulare, CA 93274.

Plaintiff, in support of this ex parte application, states that “A subpoena was issued and there was an error on where the records where to go,” that Plaintiff was told “…the discovery will be kept for 1 year, then destroyed. That date is 3/24/2026” and that “As of the timing of this file no info was received, and now I seek the courts help in preserving the evidence by order.” (Declaration of Renfro ¶¶1, 2, 4, 7.) Plaintiff further states “I had City of Tulare personally served with a preservation of evidence request and their attorney of record.” (Declaration of Renfro ¶3.)

A proof of service of this application indicates counsel for Defendants was served via email on March 13, 2026.

No opposition appears filed.

Authority and Analysis

Ex Parte Notice

The application lacks compliance with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1204 subdivisions (b) and (c) entitled “Contents of notice and declaration regarding notice” states:

(b) Declaration regarding notice An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice stating:

(1) The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected and that, within the applicable time under rule 3.1203, the applicant informed the opposing party where and when the application would be made;

(2) That the applicant in good faith attempted to inform the opposing party but was unable to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform the opposing party; or

(3) That, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to inform the opposing party.

(c) Explanation for shorter notice If notice was provided later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, the declaration regarding notice must explain:

(1) The exceptional circumstances that justify the shorter notice; or

(2) In unlawful detainer proceedings, why the notice given is reasonable.

Although the proof of service is attached to the application, the declaration is silent as to the information above.

Further, California Rule of Court, rule 3.1202, entitled “Contents of application” which, under subdivision (a), requires the following:

(a) Identification of attorney or party An ex parte application must state the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of any attorney known to the applicant to be an attorney for any party or, if no such attorney is known, the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the party if known to the applicant.

The application too is silent as to this information.

Further, the Court notes Plaintiff seeks an injunction against a non-party, the City, and that there is no proof of service of this application as to the City.

Additionally, 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.)

The Court observes no such showing here, as it notes the summary above based on the demurrer ruling has only evaluated the allegations of the operative amended complaint, accepted as true on demurrer and therefore the Court lacks any showing of likelihood on the merits.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the City to produce the material requested in the subpoena, the Court notes the material is not set to be due until April 11, 2026 if service was properly made on the City and the other requirements as to a valid subpoena were satisfied. The Court, therefore, has no basis before it to compel production.

Therefore, the Court denies the application.

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

Examiner Notes for Probate Matters Calendared

• Visalia Division 
• South County Justice Center Division