Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Friday, October 30, 2026, are:

Re:                Rodriguez, Reyna vs. Andrade Fernandez, Octaviano

Case No.:   PCU334186

Date:           October 30, 2026

Time:           1:30 P.M. 

Dept.           15-The Honorable Gary M. Johnson

Motion:     (1) Defendants’ Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: (1) To grant the motion; (2) To deny the motion

Facts Common to (1) and (2)

In this matter, Plaintiff Rodriguez filed a complaint for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Octaviano Andrade Fernandez, Rafael Andrade, Andrade Neverias Wholesale,  Neverias El Sabor De Michoacan, LLC, and Julia Islas.

On May 26, 2026, Defendants Octaviano Andrade Fernandez, Rafael Andrade,  Neverias El Sabor De Michoacan, LLC, and Julia Islas filed a verified answer to the complaint.

Thereafter, on July 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, without leave of Court.

On August 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion or summary judgment that appears directed at Defendant Fernandez, with an initial hearing date set for September 14, 2026.

On August 24, 2026, Defendants Octaviano Andrade Fernandez, Rafael Andrade,  Neverias El Sabor De Michoacan, LLC, and Julia Islas filed a motion to strike the first amended complaint.

Additionally, on September 28, 2026, Defendants Octaviano Andrade Fernandez, Rafael Andrade,  Neverias El Sabor De Michoacan, LLC, and Julia Islas filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

(1) Authority and Analysis - Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Irrelevant allegations include allegations that are not essential to the statement of a claim, allegations that are not pertinent to or supported by the claim and demands for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b), (c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 472(a) states:

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties. The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading.”

Here, Defendants answered the complaint prior to the filing of the first amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff, in order to file an amended complaint, needed to obtain leave of this Court under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576. As Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of Court prior to the filing of the first amended complaint, the Court grants the motion to strike.

(2) Authority and Analysis – Motion for Summary Judgment

To the extent that the motion for summary judgment was based on the now struck first amended complaint, the Court denies the motion based on the ruling above.

The motion, however, is denied for a number of additional reasons.

Effective January 1, 2025, the California Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a)(2)’s 75-day notice period, instead requiring that “[n]otice of [a] motion [for summary judgment] and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing.” "The purpose of the [81]-day service requirement is to allow the parties time to prepare their opposition and replies and to prepare for the hearing." (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1208.) Here, the motion provided less than 81 days, plus service, of notice. The Court denies the motion for this reason.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1350(c) requires certain documents accompanying the motion:

(c) Documents in support of motion

Except as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(r) and rule 3.1351, the motion must contain and be supported by the following documents:

(1) Notice of motion by [moving party] for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both;

(2) Separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both;

(3) Memorandum in support of [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both;

(4) Evidence in support of [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both; and

(5) Request for judicial notice in support of [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both (if appropriate).

Here, no notice of motion and no separate statement were filed with the motion. The Court denies the motion on this ground.

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. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding - Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared October 28, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:   Thursday, October 29, 2026

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302 or 1430

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

GUARDIANSHIP CASES

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

         Visalia- Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide; Honorable David C. Mathias

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared AS STATED BELOW that allow for posting:

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302.