Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, December 8, 2025, are:

Re:                 Munoz, Adriana vs. Sonoco Plastics, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU292220

Date:           December 8, 2025

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Hearing re: Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling: On November 24, 2025, the settlement administrator filed a supplemental declaration as to disbursement of the settlement fund, indicating that the check-cashing deadline was November 12, 2024, that 195 checks, totaling $33,986.78 remain uncashed, and that on November 21, 2025, PSA transmitted $33,986.78 to the California State Controller’s Office in the Class Members’ names. Therefore, the Court finds distribution of the settlement fund complete.

No appearances are required.

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:                 NCB Management Services, Inc. vs. Reyna, Vanessa

Case No.:    VCL302205

Date:            December 8, 2025

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and enter judgment as requested.

Facts

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for account stated and money lent in the amount of $7,350.65.

Defendant was served with the summons and complaint, but did not file an answer.

On August 13, 2025, the parties entered into a stipulation to resolve this matter. Defendant acknowledged being obligated to Plaintiff for the principal amount of $7,350.65 and court costs of $312.95, less a single payment of $175, for a total judgment in the amount of $7,488.60.

The stipulation provides that:

“Judgment shall not be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant so long as Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the compromise sum of $7,175.65 by paying an initial sum of $175.00 commencing on March 17, 2025, followed by the minimum sum of $175.00 per month commencing on April 21, 2025 and continuing thereafter on or before the 21st day of each month until the compromise sum of $7,175.65 is paid in full.”

Upon default, the stipulation provides that Defendant shall be entitled to the amount of $7,488.60, less payments received plus court costs (including Defendant's first appearance fees and any motion filing fee, if applicable.

The stipulation indicates that the Court shall retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On August 18, 2025, the matter was dismissed pursuant to section 664.6.

Plaintiff indicates that Defendant made $525 in payments, with the last payment on May 21, 2025.

Authority and Analysis

Section 664.6 (a) states: 

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

“The court’s retention of jurisdiction under section 664.6 includes jurisdiction over both the parties and the case itself, that is, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.” (Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (2014) 230 Cal.App.4^th 1050, 1061.) “Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 1355, 1360.)

As indicated above, the Court retained jurisdiction over the parties and this matter and therefore is prepared to “enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”

Defendant appears to have breached the settlement, based upon the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel and, the Court, having no opposition, grants the motion. The Court will enter judgment in the amount of $7,471.33 consisting of the principal sum of $7,350.65, plus previous court costs of $312.95, $27.73 e-filing fee, $245.00 Order fee and $60.00 motion fee for the filing of this motion, less $525.00 for payments made to date.

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:                 Walter, Ryan vs. Golden, Josh

Case No.:   VCU320087

Date:            December 8, 2025

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling: As no defendant has filed a responsive pleading to the initial complaint, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by right pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472(a) without a 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:                  Mesa Lotco, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company et al vs. Hawkins, Leah Quade

Case No.:    VCU323661

Date:            December 8, 2025

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Motion to Determine Value

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. The Court, therefore, takes the hearing 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:                Machaen, Arturo et al vs. Ford Motor Company et al

Case No.:   VCU324108

Date:           December 8, 2025

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Defendant SK Battery America Inc.’s Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion.

Facts

In the amended complaint for “1) General Negligence; 2) Negligence - Failure to Warn; 3) PL - Strict Liability; 4) PL - Breach of Express Warranty; 5) PL - Breach of Implied Warranty; 6) PL - Breach of Warranty of Merchantability; 7) PL - Strict Liability - Failure to Warn 8) Loss of Consortium; and 9) Breach of Express and Implied Warranty (Song-Beverly Act)” Plaintiff sues Defendants Ford Motor Company, SK Battery America Inc., Bill Brandt Ford Inc., Haberfelde Ford dba Jim Burke Ford, and Big Valley Ford, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges he purchased a 2023 Ford F150 Lightning, a electric vehicle, which on October 9, 2024, caught fire.

Defendant SK Battery America, Inc. (Defendant “SKBA”) moves to quash service on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction.

In support, SKBA provides the declaration of its Finance Director, who states that they are familiar with SKBA’s business and operation since March 2024, that SKBA is a Georgia-based corporation, incorporated under the laws of Delaware, that SKBA’s principal place of business is Commerce, Georgia, that SKBA has no offices in California, that SKBA does not own or lease property in California, that SKBA does not maintain any bank accounts in California, that SKBA does not have any parent or subsidiary entity that maintains, owns or leases any office, property, or other assets in California, and that SKBA does not maintain any local listing in telephone or business directories in California. (Declaration of Ok ¶¶1-8.)

Further, that SKBA designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes various products, including lithium-ion battery modules and systems for incorporation into and use in motor vehicles in Georgia and other states, but not in California. (Declaration of Ok ¶9.) Further, that SKBA does not design, manufacture, market, advertise, or distribute any battery module components or systems from California and does not service or repair battery module components or systems for warranty purposes or otherwise, in California. (Declaration of Ok ¶¶10, 11.) Additionally, that SKBA does not have any authorized dealers or distributors for battery module components or systems in California. (Declaration of Ok ¶12.)

Further, that “SKBA employs approximately 3,100 employees who are located in Georgia and states other than California. SKBA has only one employee assigned for duty in California who was recently hired on September 8, 2025. That employee’s work involves a new energy storage system project and is not related to automotive battery modules or systems for the 2023 Ford Lightning (“Subject Vehicle”) at issue in this case. Other than the one employee, SKBA does not have any director, officer, agent, or employees that are assigned for duty in California.” (Declaration of Ok ¶14.)

Additionally, that SKBA distributes its battery module components and systems from Georgia (and states other than California) to other companies in the vehicle-manufacture industry, but that SKBA has no direct knowledge of whether or to what extent its products are sold by its customers into or in California, whether or to what extent its products are incorporated into vehicles that are sold into or in California. (Declaration of Ok ¶15.)

Finally, that SKBA was a supplier of a lithium-ion battery module, which was designed to meet Ford’s specifications, that SKBA manufactured the battery module in Commerce, Georgia and then shipped the battery module to Ford in Michigan, which Ford or third parties then incorporated into various vehicles. (Complaint ¶¶16, 17.)

In opposition, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities only arguing that “SKBA purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California by placing its battery modules into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and expectation that they would be incorporated into Ford vehicles sold in California, including the vehicle that injured Plaintiffs in California.”

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 states: “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion … (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

“California courts may exercise jurisdiction on any basis that is not inconsistent with the state and federal Constitutions. Thus, the inquiry in California is whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.” (Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 865 [internal quotations and citations omitted])  “Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.)

“When a defendant challenges jurisdiction through a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate facts, as to each nonresident defendant, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. [Citation.] The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair and Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221-222.) “Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Vons Companies, Inc, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 449.)

Jurisdictional facts must be proved by competent evidence - that is, declarations by competent witnesses. If the parties' declarations conflict on the jurisdictional fact, the court decides whom to believe. (Evangelize China Fellowship, Inc. v. Evangelize China Fellowship (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 440, 444.) Unverified pleadings have no evidentiary value in determining personal jurisdiction but can be relevant to determination of the cause of action and whether it arises out of the defendant's alleged local activities. (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) If there is no conflict in the evidence, "the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law." (Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.)

Here, Plaintiff has not met its burden to provide specific, evidentiary facts through affidavits or other authenticated documents sufficient for the Court to analyze whether jurisdiction is appropriate. Such statements made in the supporting memorandum are not evidence and therefore cannot supplement the averments in the parties' declarations. (Reid v. Overland Machined Products (1961) 55 Cal.2d 203, 209 ("Statements in the pleadings or memoranda of counsel are hearsay, self-serving, and incompetent as evidence."); Ponte v. County of Calaveras (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 551, 556 [“the arguments of counsel in a motion are not a substitute for evidence...”)

The Court further notes that Plaintiff does not attempt to establish general jurisdiction of SKBA in California.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s theory of purposeful availment is likewise unsupported under the law. “In the products liability context, merely placing a product into the stream of commerce, even with knowledge that the product might enter the forum state, is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 559.)   

As such, the Court grants 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:                 Fannin-Miller, Tracy Lee vs. Miller, Tracy Laynne

Case No.:   VCL308499

Date:           December 8, 2025

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:      Plaintiff’s Motion

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Facts

The Court notes that the complaint appears to Defendant Tracy Layne Miller and Tony Patrick Miller, but no proof of service of the complaint appears in the file.

This motion appears directed at the Court itself, as it states “I REQUEST A HEARING TO REQUEST, CORRECTION OF CASES AT THIS COURT THAT WERE FALSELY ASSOCIATED TO ME…” This motion, therefore, does not appear directed at any of the unserved Defendants. There are other references to findings of factual innocence, and a number of other legal theories or concepts.

The Court, therefore, 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

Examiner Notes for Probate Matters Calendared

• Visalia Division 
• South County Justice Center Division