Law & Motion Calendar

The tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard.  If you desire to appear and present oral argument, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Judge’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6604, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear, and whether that appearance is in person or via Zoom, no later 4:00 p.m. the court day immediately preceding the day of the hearing.

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary unless otherwise indicated.

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE:

Department 18 Hearings

• Meeting ID: 160—739—4368
• Password: 000169
• https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607394368?pwd=aW1JTWlIL3NBeE9LVHU2NVVpQlVRUT09
   

TO JOIN DEPARTMENT 18 “ZOOM” BY PHONE:

• By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed for each calendar):
• Call: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
   

PLEASE NOTE: The Court’s Official Court Reporters are “not available” within the meaning of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956, for court reporting of civil cases.

Guide for Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom for Dept 18:

• After joining the meeting and checking in with the clerk, please mute your audio when not speaking. This helps keep background noise to a minimum.
• Be mindful of background noise when your microphone is not muted. Avoid activities that could create additional noise, such as shuffling papers.
• Position your camera properly if you choose to use a web camera. Be sure it is in a stable position and focused at eye level, if possible. Make sure everything visible in the frame is appropriate for an appearance in court.
• If a confidential session becomes necessary it is incumbent on you to ensure you are able to participate from a private location so that unauthorized people cannot overhear or see the proceedings.
• Chat is enabled for the sharing of documents among participants and the court and to allow attorneys to communicate individually with each other or their clients only. No chat messages should be sent privately to the court as it would amount to an unauthorized ex parte communication. Neither should chat messages be sent to all participants unless directed by the court.
• The recording function has been disabled. Remember, the prohibition against recording court proceedings, even remote ones, remains.
• Be patient. Check in will take more time and the experience from those who have tried this before is that proceedings are a little slower generally.

1.         SCV-273657, County of Sonoma v. Beaver: Motion for Judgment on Claims Repeated in Warrants

Defendant’s motion for judgment on claims repeated in warrants is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit a written order consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule 3.1312.

Plaintiff County of Sonoma filed its Complaint on July 7, 2023, to compel abatement of several violations of Sonoma County Building, Septic, and Zoning Codes. On March 13, 2025, the County executed an Inspection Warrant on Defendants’ property which revealed four additional code violations for which the County issued Notice and Orders on March 13, 2025, by posting them on Defendants’ property along with a second copy of the Inspection Warrant.

On June 6, 2025, Defendant John Beaver filed a motion for judgment on claims repeated in warrants. Defendant sought for the Court to enter judgment in his favor as to the four new violations that were noticed after Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. However, the four additional violations from March 13, 2025 (VBU25-0098, VPL25-0093, VBU25-0099, and VBU25- 0100) are not included in the Complaint in this action.

Defendant’s original motion came on for hearing on August 29, 2025. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion because Defendant had failed to provide any legal authority allowing the Court to issue a judgment on claims that were not alleged the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant’s counsel appeared at the hearing and represented that the motion was being withdrawn and that he would file a new motion. Accordingly, the Court did not adopt its tentative ruling. Defendant’s new motion was filed on August 26, 2025, and is the instant motion before the Court. It seeks the exact same relief as the previous motion. Notwithstanding the several procedural deficiencies of the motion, it still fails to cite any authority that would allow this Court to issue a judgment on claims that are not included in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

This motion came on for hearing on October 29, 2025, wherein Defendant’s counsel represented he never received the County’s opposition to this motion. Therefore, the Court continued the hearing to allow Defendant to submit a reply brief. He has now done so.

In Defendant’s reply, Defendant argues that the March 13th violations are “the same facts” as the violations that are included in the County’s complaint herein. However, Defendant has not made such a showing. Defendant points to the Declaration of Jesse Cablk in Support of Plaintiff County of Sonoma’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Proposed Judgment as proving that the violations are “the same fact.” He does not specify where in the declaration such proof can be found. The Court does not find that Defendant has shown that the March 13th violations are predicated on “the same facts” as the ones that the subject of this action. 

Further, Defendant raises the issue that he tried to file an appeal of the March 13th Notices and Orders on March 24th, but the County office was closed, so he was unable to file his appeal. As stated above, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide anything in relation to the March 13th Notices and Orders because they are not properly before this Court. Defendant has not cited any authority giving this Court authority to decide anything relating to the March 13th Notices or the attempted appeal thereof.

Finally, the court notes that it appears that Mr. Olick is withdrawing his motion.  In his Declaration in Reply he notes: “3. On reflection and consideration it is believed that this is an appropriate matter for trial and defendants withdraw this motion without prejudice to have it determined on evidence presented at trial particularly the testimony of Jesse Cablk.” The court notes this request; however as noted above the court finds that the motion lacks merit.

2.         25CV02164, Ordaz v. General Motors, LLC: Demurrer

Appearances required.

The demurrer on calendar relates to is to the original complaint. After filing this motion, Defendant filed a withdrawal of the demurrer due to Plaintiff’s filing of a first amended complaint. However, Plaintiff never actually filed a first amended complaint. Defendant then filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint. However, this was vacated because there was no first amended complaint on file. At present there is no motion on calendar given that the first demurrer was withdrawn and the second demurrer was vacated. Appearances are required to discuss the procedural posture and pleadings in this case.

3.         SCV-272228, Institute of Imaginal Studies v. Lyman: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

Defendant Asher Lyman’s motion to compel discovery responses from Plaintiffs is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,500.00. Plaintiffs’ request for relief from waiver of their objections is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant is DENIED.

Defendant’s counsel shall submit a written order consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule 3.1312.

As an initial matter, Defendant argues in reply that this matter is stayed pending the appeal of Defendant James Garrison’s Anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant cites Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180. The Varian Court stated, “We now determine whether the perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion. We conclude that it does.” (Id. at 186.) The Court finds the key words of this quotation to be “upon the causes of action affected by the motion.” As applied here, since the motion on appeal is the Anti-SLAPP of James Garrison relating to the causes of action alleged against him, this would mean that all Court proceedings relating to the causes of action alleged against James Garrison are stayed. However, court proceedings relating to all other causes of action alleged by all other parties are not. No showing has been made that any other causes of action alleged against any other party are affected by James Garrison’s Anti-SLAPP motion. Rather, this proceeding relating to the discovery requests propounded upon Plaintiffs by Defendant Asher Lyman does not relate to the causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs against James Garrison. It is therefore not stayed.

Defendant Asher Lyman propounded Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs on February 10, 2025. On February 27, 2025, Defendant James Garrison filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, which stayed discovery. The stay of discovery remained in effect until August 28, 2025, when the Notice of Entry of Order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion was served.

Defendant submits that once the stay was lifted, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses became due on September 12, 2025. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that since Defendant Garrison served his Anti-SLAPP motion on February 15, 2025, that’s when statutory the stay commenced (rather than on the 27th when it was filed. If this were true, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses would have been due on September 24th instead of the 12th. However, Plaintiffs have not cited authority supporting their position.

CCP § 425.16 states, “All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion.” (Italics added.) The statute does not state that the stay commences upon service of the motion, but rather upon filing of the motion. Plaintiffs have not cited authority otherwise.

Accordingly, Defendant is correct that Plaintiffs’ responses were due on September 12th. Therefore, when Plaintiffs served responses on September 24th, they were late. CCP § 2031.300 provides that a party who fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand waives any objection to the demand. However, it also provides that the Court may relieve the party from the waiver on its determination that (1) the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response; and (2) that the party’s failure to serve a timely response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The Court makes such findings here. Plaintiffs have served responses that appear to substantially comply with the Discovery Act. This is not a statement on whether further responses are necessary, as such question is not before this Court at this time. Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses appears to be due to Plaintiffs’ mistaken belief that the discovery stay commenced sooner than it did. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall be relieved from their waiver.

The Court finds sanctions to be warranted. Though it is clear that Plaintiffs’ delay was due to a mistake, it is not clear that Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification since Plaintiffs have not cited any authority for their position that the discovery stay commenced upon service of the motion, not its filing. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant Asher Lyman’s “acknowledgement of the stay just three days later” is not compelling since such acknowledgment is not legal authority and Defendant Lyman was self-represented at that time. Plaintiffs have not provided any other compelling reason why the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Defendant requests $2,500.00 in sanctions based on an hourly rate of $395 and 6.4 hours spent on the motion. Though $395 times 6.4 amounts to $2,528, the Court will grant the requested $2,500 because the Court finds it to be reasonable to compensate Defendant. The Court will not grant any of the additional anticipated hours because the Court finds 6.4 hours to be a sufficient number of hours to spend on this motion including replying and appearing at a hearing.

4.         25SC00205, Wirch v. Sherman: Claim of Exemption

Defendant Kathleen Sherman’s Claim of Exemption is DENIED.

The Court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the Court.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $2,409.22. Pursuant to a Writ of Execution, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office placed a hold on Defendant’s funds located in a Chase Bank account in the amount of $1,493.90. Defendant claims that these funds are exempt under CCP §§ 704.080 and 704.115 as Social Security, Two Annuities, and Retirement IRA funds.

However, the notice of hold sent to Defendant by Chase Bank specifically states, “Account 9492 contains state exempt funds-account held for $1493.90 which is amount of funds available above state exempt amount.” (Attachment to Defendant’s Claim of Exemption, p. 1.) Furthermore, Defendant has not met her burden under CCP § 703.080 of tracing the exempt funds. Accordingly, Defendant has filed to show that the funds are exempt.

***This is the end of the Tentative Rulings***