Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a Visalia probate matter listed below you may contact the Visalia Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #2342. For further information regarding a SCJC probate matter listed below you may contact the SCJC Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Monday, December 15, 2025, are:
Re: Mireles, Javier State of California Ex. Rel. vs. Central Valley Construction
Case No.: VCU293499
Date: December 15, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Hearing re: Final Compliance
Tentative Ruling: The Court approved this PAGA settlement on June 16, 2025 and set this final compliance hearing regarding distribution of the settlement fund. No declaration as to distribution has been filed and therefore the Court continues this matter to February 9, 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: Jones Vernon K Vs. Musgrove, Pest
Case No.: VCU181111-97
Date: December 15, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Motion for Reconsideration
Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion
Facts and Analysis
On October 6, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside or vacate the dismissal of the $4,000,000 judgment on February 25, 1998.
On October 7, 2025, the Court mailed notice of this ruling to Plaintiff.
On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of service on him of notice of entry of the order in question. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) As provided in section 1013, a 5 day extension of time for mail service applies in the absence of a specific exception, and no such exception is present in section 1008 (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a).)
As noted above, service by mail was made October 7, 2025, providing Plaintiff 15 days from that date to file this motion under sections 1008 and 1013(a),
Therefore, Plaintiff was required to file this motion no later than October 22, 2025.
Here, the motion was filed October 27, 2025 and therefore is beyond the time permitted in section 1008.
Therefore, the Court denies the motion on this ground.
Additionally, section 1008 requires new or different facts, circumstances or law/ New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 212, states, "Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a motion for reconsideration be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration also must provide satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. [Citation.]" Further, the New York Times Co. court noted "The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial. [Citation.] Case law after the 1992 amendments to Section 1008 as relaxed the definition of 'new or different facts,' but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court. [Citations.]" (Id. at 212-213.) Here, Plaintiff has not presented new evidence or facts under this standard, and cannot be said to have met his burden under section 1008.
Therefore, 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.
Re: Vivint Solar Developer, LLC vs. Rodriguez, Esmeralda
Case No.: VCU323835
Date: December 15, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion
Facts and Analysis
Plaintiff filed this complaint for breach of contract on July 21, 2025.
Defendant answered the complaint in this matter on September 19, 2025.
On November 5, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to compel initial responses to requests for production of documents, set for November 7, 2025.
The Court, having found no basis to hear this matter on an ex parte basis or on shortened time, set the matter for hearing on regular notice for December 15, 2025.
As to the merits, Defendant’s motion states “On August 21, 2025, Defendant mailed three written letters to Vivint Solar/Sunrun at three different business addresses, requesting copies of all contracts and account information related to property located at 2320 S. Hall St., Visalia, California. These letters were mailed through regular U.S. mail, as Defendant was unsure if the addresses were still active. No response was received from any of them.”
However, the Court notes that Defendant is represented by counsel as named in the complaint.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.040 states that “The party making a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall serve a copy of the demand on the party to whom it is directed and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.”
Any discovery should have been served on counsel as well. California Rule of Court, rule 1.21. entitled Service notes:
“(a) Service on a party or attorney
Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented.”
Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses is denied, as there is no showing that Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the requests.
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: Munoz, Kaddish vs. C.H.L. EMS, Inc.
Case No.: VCU309413
Date: December 15, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval
Tentative Ruling: To preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, as indicated herein; to set the motion for final approval for July 20, 2026 8:30 am, Department 7.
Background Facts
At the prior hearing on November 17, 2025, the Court continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to information to calculate the lodestar and the presently incurred costs. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration addressing these issues.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Attorneys’ fees of 33 1/3% of the gross settlement fund of $250,000 or $83,333.33 and costs not to exceed $25,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel. Via the supplemental declaration, counsel has utilized the percentage of common fund methodology as well as provided adequate lodestar information to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request.
Here,
Here, counsel indicates that 156.9 hours incurred on this case, at a rate of $950 per hour, providing a lodestar of $149,055, resulting in a negative lodestar multiplier to achieve the fee request. (Supplemental Declaration of Otkupman ¶9.)
Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of $12,645.98 (Supplemental Declaration of Otkupman ¶16.) Therefore, the Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $20,000.00.
Accordingly, the motion to preliminarily approve the Class Action and PAGA settlement is granted, with the following deductions from the gross settlement of $250,000 approved as follows:
|
Approved Attorneys’ Fees (33.3%): |
$83,333.33 |
|
Approved Attorney Costs (up to): |
$20,000.00 |
|
Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff : |
$5,000.00 |
|
Approved Settlement Administrator Costs |
$6,550.00 |
|
Approved PAGA Payment |
$25,000.00 |
|
Approved Net Settlement Amount |
$110,116.67 |
Motion for final approval is set for July 20, 2026 8:30 am, Department 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.