Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, March 16, 2026, are:

Re:                Progressive Preferred Insurance Company vs. Thompson, Jonathan G.

Case No.:  VCL318305

Date:           March 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion Set Aside Default

Tentative Ruling: To continue the motion to April 13, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 7 and order Defendant to serve the motion on Plaintiff’s counsel.

Facts and Analysis

On February 2, 2026, Defendant filed this motion for relief from default. No proof of service appears attached to the motion.

On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document indicating it had not received service of the motion and accompanying documents.

The Court, therefore, orders service of the motion and continues the hearing to April 13, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 7.

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:                Moore, Vickie Jeane vs. Cooper, Tyree

Case No.:   VCU293164 

Date:           March 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motions:    Motion to Interplead Funds; Motion for Joinder

Tentative Rulings:  To deny the motions to interplead funds and for joinder.

This is a partition action and the parties have encountered a problem.  Apparently, the real property that is the subject of the action has been, or is to be, sold, and a title company, First American Title Company, which is evidently involved in the sale transaction, “is unable to determine the validity of [various competing] claims and cannot safely determine to whom the settlement proceeds should be paid.”

Here, defendant Danny Stewart presents a motion in which he, in effect, moves to compel First American Title Company, a non-party, to bring an action against the parties to this case, as well as two county Departments of Child Support Services who are also non-parties, and who evidently have some claim to the proceeds of the apparent sale transaction, to compel them to interplead and litigate their claims to the proceeds from the apparent sale.  Relatedly, Stewart moves to join First American and the two child support services agencies as “claimants to this action.”

Stewart’s briefs generally cite to and discuss the statutory bases for the interpleader remedy and for joinder, but no authority is identified for what Stewart asks the court to do here.  The court is aware of no such authority. 

It appears the parties have encountered a problem that could have been avoided by proper adherence to the statutory procedures governing this interpleader action.  The solution is not to use another remedy in contravention to the statutes governing its use. 

The motions are denied. 

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:               Anaya, Antonio vs. Williams Family Dairy, LLC

Case No.:  VCU322028

Date:          March 16, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Background Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff brings a single cause of action under PAGA, Labor Code sections 2869, et seq, against Defendant Williams Family Dairy.

Defendants moves to compel arbitration of the “individual” PAGA claims and stay this matter as to the “representative” PAGA claims, alleging an arbitration agreement purportedly hand signed by Plaintiff on February 6, 2023.

Facts – Agreement to Arbitrate

In support, Defendant provides the declaration of its Chief Financial Officer and manager who indicates familiarity with the onboarding process and the record keeping of Defendant and who attaches, as Exhibit A, a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly signed by Plaintiff. (Declaration of Williams ¶¶1-8, Ex. A.) Additionally, the declarant provides a copy of a document entitled “ARBITRATION PROCESS” as Exhibit B. (Declaration of Williams ¶8 – Ex. B)

The Court notes Exhibits A and B are written in the Spanish language.

Declarant further states “As the Arbitration Agreement is in Spanish, I am also providing a copy of the English version of the Arbitration Agreement as Exhibit C and of the Arbitration Process handout as Exhibit D.” (Declaration of Williams ¶8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff challenges the failure to provide a certified translation pursuant to Rule of Court, rule 3.1110(g), which requires “Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”

Authority and Analysis – Agreement to Arbitrate

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(a), (b).) (emphasis added.) The motion to compel arbitration requires the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413–414.) The motion must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218.)

Absent a challenge by the nonmoving party, this burden is met by simply providing a copy of the arbitration agreement.  (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 1152, 1160; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.)  “For purposes of a petition to compel arbitration, it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.” (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 218; Sprunk v. Prisma LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 785, 793.)  

However, when the opposing party disputes the agreement, then the opposing party must provide evidence to challenge its authenticity.  (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) 

Under California law, "[t]he burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence …." (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at 164-165.)

"However, the burden of production may shift in a three-step process." (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at. 165.)

"First, the moving party bears the burden of producing 'prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.' [Citation.]" (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 165.) "The moving party 'can meet its initial burden by attaching to the [motion or] petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the [opposing party's] signature.' [Citation.]" (Id.) "For this step, 'it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.' [Citation.]” (Id.)

Here, Defendant has provided the Agreement, Exhibit A, in purported satisfaction of this requirement, as well as Exhibit B, an English version of the Agreement.

If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement." (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) “The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement.” (Id.)

Here, however, Plaintiff challenges that Exhibit B violates California Rule of Court, rule 3.1110(g) which requires, as noted above: “Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”

Further, Plaintiff notes, and the Court observes, Exhibit A contains fourteen (14) sections with subheadings and signature blocks, while Exhibit C contains only ten (10) sections with subheadings and no signature blocks.

Therefore, the Court agrees Plaintiff has met the burden in opposing the motion by arguing that Exhibits C and D fail to comply with the Rule of Court and challenging the accuracy of the translation by a comparison of the number of sections and approximate length of such sections.

The Court notes that the moving party may submit additional evidence in reply. (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060. [finding “the trial court abused its discretion” in striking supplemental declaration as untimely].)

As to the translation issue, Defendant submits the declaration of its counsel’s paralegal, who indicates fluency in Spanish and English and that “I am a qualified translator and interpreter and have undertaken numerous translation and interpreting activities during my career, including translating documents, interpreting and translating conversations and direct dialogue, conducting and interpreting trainings in English and Spanish, and several other interpreting and translation tasks.” (Declaration of Valencia ¶¶3, 4.) Further, that the paralegal created the English translation of Exhibit A and that the attached is a true translation of the Spanish version of the Agreement.

The Court is readily familiar with certified interpreters who assist the Court with live testimony, including the qualifications thereof. While the declaration is under oath, there is no attempt to set forth qualifications as to translation of the documents. Typically, as to translated documents, the interpreter provides an English language translation, certified under oath, as well as a description of the translator's qualifications or certification. This permits the Court to confirm the accuracy of the translation, if necessary.

Here, the translation by a paralegal in Defendant’s counsel’s office is insufficient as to a certified translation.

Moreover, however, neither the reply nor the motion address the issue that Exhibit A contains 14 sections and a signature block and Exhibit C contains 10 sections and no signature block.

The Court expressly notes that section 10 of Exhibit C, the waiver section, is three paragraphs in the English version, but section 10 of Exhibit A, entitled “Consideracion” appears to be a single sentence. Further, the Court notes section 10, is a single paragraph in Exhibit A, while it extends to three paragraphs in Exhibit C. Much of the dispute in this motion concerns section 10.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion, finding an insufficient compliance with the Rule of Court as to the Spanish version, discrepancies between the Spanish and English versions, including as to the central issue of the “class/representative action waiver” section.

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