Tentative ruling on Jul. 10, 2024 in Stanislaus County, CA - Case no: xxxxx760

CV-18-002624 – BANK OF AMERICA vs DAVIS, MATHEW WILLIAM – Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties – GRANTED, and unopposed. After review of the moving papers and evidence and in view of the lack of opposition, and in view of the Court’s previous order on 3-3-23 setting aside the dismissal and approving entry of judgment herein, the Court finds that judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for the net amount of $6,467.26, calculated as follows:  Principal amount $10,761.11; Previously incurred court costs as reflected in the parties’ stipulation $442; Filing fee for the instant motion $60; E-filing fee $4.15; Order fee $20, less credit for payments made in the amount of $4,820. The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff. THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM IS DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to the court before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Upon receipt, the court will schedule a Zoom hearing.

CV-23-003513 – LOPEZ, JOSE vs SILVA, ANTHONY JOHN LEWIS – Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint – GRANTED. Plaintiffs’  complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating any negligence on the part of moving Defendants and fails to allege facts that demonstrate malice; a conscious disregard of the safety of others such as the decedent, or that demonstrate despicable conduct by the moving Defendants; “conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched, or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people”,  that would support a claim for punitive damages. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 436 and 3294(c)(1); College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994), 8 Cal.4th 704, as modified; King v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, (2020), 53 Cal. App. 5th 675, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 24, 2020); (Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017). Overall, as currently pled, this is not a case in which a jury could determine by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is hereby granted, with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is denied.

CV-21-003748 – PRICOLO, VICTORIA vs SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS – Defendant Armand Hernandez M.D.’S Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Adjudication, Summary Adjudication – DENIED, in part, GRANTED, in part. Based on a review of the moving and opposing papers, supporting evidence, and expert declarations, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment herein as to Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).) Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established the existence of triable issues of material fact as to whether Everly Pricolo had an infection that required the administration of antibiotics and whether Defendant complied with the appropriate standard of care in deciding not to administer antibiotics to Everly, and as to whether said treatment was the legal cause of Everly Pricolo’s neurological injury. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826; Code of Civil Procedure § 437c (p)(2): Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.4th 112, 125; Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 763, 768). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied. The Court also finds that Plaintiff Victoria Pricolo did not suffer emotional distress due to being “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occur[ed] and [is] then aware that it is causing injury to” Everly Pricolo. (Dillon v. Legg, (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728; Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc., (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 203; Thing v. La Chusa, (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 644; (Downey v. City of Riverside, (2023) 90 Cal. App. 5th 1033, review granted). Defendant is accordingly granted Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action. Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendant’s Supplemental Authority is granted. The Court only granted leave for supplementary briefing by the parties’ experts. Defendant’s evidentiary objections to are overruled. Defendant’s request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evidence Code §§ 452 (d) and (h)).  THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM MAY BE DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to civil.tentatives@stanct.org before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Please refer to the Stanislaus Superior Court website for call-in instructions for the hearing. If VCourt is unavailable the website will post Zoom Meeting credentials for Dept. 24. The hearing will proceed via Zoom if VCourt is still unavailable.

FL-21-002079 – GARCIA VS ARELLANO Petitioner’s Request for Order re Vocational Evaluation—HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that Petitioner’s proof of service demonstrates, appropriately, service on Respondent’s counsel of record at the time, but that a Substitution of Attorney was recently filed and Respondent is now self-represented.  While notice and service are timely given the Order Shortening Time, Respondent may not have had the opportunity to review and to either oppose or consent to the examination. If the latter, then the parties may submit the previously prepared stipulation and order and a contested hearing is unnecessary. If the former, then the Court is inclined to grant the motion because good cause exists for a vocational examination whenever there is pending dispute regarding spousal support and “the spouse seeking support or the spouse contesting a support award (as the case may be) is capable of working but is unemployed or underemployed,” which is obviously the case here.  (Fam. Code, § 4331; Marriage of Stupp & Schilders (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 907, 913; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide Fam. L. (TRG 2024) Ch. 6-B, § 6:846.)  In order to rebut Petitioner’s showing, Respondent would have to persuade the Court that the proposed vocational examination is inappropriate, prejudicial or harmful in some way that defeats Petitioner’s right under the statute to conduct discovery in this manner. Either way, if ordered, Petitioner shall bear all costs of the evaluation and the Court will reserve jurisdiction over allocation and imposition on Petitioner of the necessary expenses and costs of further counseling, retraining or education for Respondent, in addition to whatever is awarded for spousal support.  (Fam. Code, § 4331(f).)

CV-19-003157 – GARIBAY, MARIA vs HAPPY BEES INC – Final Report re: Distribution of Settlements Funds – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to file its Final Report regarding the distribution of the settlement funds, this matter is continued to August 30 at 8:30 am in Department 24. THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM MAY BE DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to civil.tentatives@stanct.org before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Please refer to the Stanislaus Superior Court website for call-in instructions for the hearing. If VCourt is unavailable the website will post Zoom Meeting credentials for Dept. 24. The hearing will proceed via Zoom if VCourt is still unavailable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

CV-22-004296 – B.,L. vs DOE 1 – Defendant County of Stanislaus’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.   The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings herein. In the interests of judicial efficiency, this matter is continued to Thursday, September, 12 at 8:30 am in Department 24.

CV-24-003591 – TIMOSH, CATLYNN A vs MATEOS, DIEGO GIRALDO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(B) – DENIED, without prejudice. The motion appears to be procedurally defective. There is no proof of service for the motion in the Court’s file, as required by rule 3.1300(c) of the California Rules of Court. Consequently, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.

CV-23-006622 – DISCOVER BANK vs FERNANDEZ, MANUEL – Plaintiff Discover Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and unopposed.   The Court GRANTS the request to take judicial notice of the answer and complaint filed in this case. The answer admits all allegations in the complaint as true and does not assert any affirmative defenses.   Based on the pleadings, the Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).) Defendant, who did not oppose this motion, has not given the Court any reason to grant leave to amend. (Cf. Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176, reh'g denied (Oct. 25, 2022), review denied (Jan. 18, 2023).)   Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court will sign the proposed order and the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff. Court trial date to be vacated.   Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.