June 11, 2025

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-22-003478 – JACKSON, MICHAEL vs GRASPOINTER MANAGEMENT CO INC – Final Fairness – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has reviewed the papers that were filed on April 29, 2025, but still has questions regarding the expenses.

CV-24-006949 – CORTEZ, ROBERTO vs NEWLY WEDS FOODS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, Conditional Certification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date – HEARING REQUIRED.

There is one anomaly that the Court would like to discuss with the parties: the fact that the Class Period and PAGA Period close on June 17, 2025, which is after the hearing on this matter. The Court is aware of cases where the Class Period ran through the date of the hearing for preliminary approval (see, e.g., Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 531).

The Court is tentatively of the opinion that it is likely allowed to do this for a preliminary approval hearing. Will this affect the timeline in any other ways?

Other than the timing concerns, the motion appears meritorious, and the Court is likely to GRANT the motion.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and is deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with rule 3.769(c) of the California Rules of Court. The class counsel, class representative, and settlement administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court also finds that the proposed PAGA settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77, disapproved of in part on inapposite grounds by Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.)

The class of approximately 65 comprises “any person who worked for NWF in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee during the Class Period.” (Moon Decl. Exh. 2 § 1.5.) “Class Period” is defined as, “the period from September 3, 2020, to June 17, 2025.” (Moon Decl. Exh. 2 § 1.12.)

Regarding the PAGA claim, the term “Aggrieved Employees” means, “any person who worked for NWF in California as an hourly, nonexempt employee during the PAGA Period.” (Moon Decl. Exh. 2 § 1.4.) “The PAGA Period” is defined as, “the period from August 24, 2023 to June 17, 2025.”

The parties intend to use ILYM Group, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator.

The proposed gross settlement amount (GSA) is $300,000, with the proposed distribution as follows: “(a) Class Counsel Fees Payment of $100,000.00 (1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount); (b) Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment not to exceed $22,000.00 for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses; (c) Class Representative Service Payment to Plaintiff not to exceed $7,500.00; (d) Administration Expenses Payment to ILYM Group, Inc., the Administrator, not to exceed $4,850.00; (e) PAGA Penalties of $20,000.00, sixty-five percent (65%) of which ($13,000.00) will be paid to the LWDA and thirty-five percent (35%) of which ($7,000.00) shall be paid to Aggrieved Employees, on a pro rata basis; and (f) Defendants’ share of applicable payroll taxes.” (Mem., at pp. 3-4; Moon Decl. ¶ 28.)

This leaves $145,650 as the net settlement amount (NSA). Divided amongst a class of 65, this will result in an average payment of $2,240.77. Twenty percent of this amount will be allotted to wages and the other 80% to interest and penalties.

The Court has reviewed the declarations filed in support of the settlement. Based on the declaration from Attorney Kane Moon, the Court finds that this appears to be an arms-length bargain between sophisticated counsel, with the settlement facilitated by an experienced mediator. Considering the risks of pursuing the litigation to judgment, including the substantial risks relative to class certification and the costs of pursuing the litigation, the settlement seems reasonable.

The declaration from Plaintiff Cortez substantially supports the proposed enhancement award of $7,500 to him.

The Court finds the schedule set forth in the settlement agreement acceptable. The Court intends to sign the proposed order.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 14, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 of this Court. Standard rules and statutes for the filing and service of a noticed motion apply to the motion for final approval of the settlement.

CV-25-004573 – VAZQUEZ, YASMINE vs MODESTOCITYSCHOOLSAND – Petitioner’s Petition for Order Relieving from Provisions of Government Code Sec. 945.4 – DENIED.

The petition is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service in the court file showing service as prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) on “the clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity, if the respondent is a local public entity.” (See Gov’t Code, § 946.6(d); see also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(c) [stating proofs of service are to be filed at least five court days before the hearing date].) The referenced exhibits are not attached.

Despite these fatal procedural issues, the Court reaches the merits.

The petition asserts that the incident occurred on August 21, 2023, but then states that the six-month deadline for presenting a claim ran on September 21, 2023. The late claim was then presented on March 1, 2024, and was rejected on April 8, 2024.

The petition is facially untimely under Government Code § 946.6(b) and must be denied.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-002593 – MILLER ARMS COMPANY INC vs CITY OF RIVERBANK – a) Defendant City of Riverbank’s Motion to Compel Responses from Miller Arms Company, Inc. to Form interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED to June 12, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Defendant City of Riverbank’s Motion to Compel Responses from Miller Arms Company, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One – CONTINUED to June 12, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to June 12, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motions on calendar that day.

CV-23-004628 – COUGHLIN, SAMANTHA vs FRESHPOINT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – CONTINUED to July 9, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This matter is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to July 9, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 22 for further review and consideration.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-22-004661 – CORONA, MARIA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses – GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $38,831.48.

The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5^th 462.)

Attorney’s Fees

Hours Reasonably Worked –

Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds on the basis of Counsel’s declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, that the bulk of the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, based on the evidence submitted by Defendant in opposition and on the Court’s own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court’s experience in a civil law assignment and familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described by Plaintiff’s’ counsel herein, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs’ counsel herein should be reduced as follows:

0.3 hours claimed by James Carroll on 4-17-24 in connection with assistance with preparation for oral argument

8.2 hours claimed by Ebony Randolph in January and February 2024 in connection with preparation of the motion to compel further responses to requests for production.

3.2 hours claimed by Ebony Randolph on 4-1-24 and 4-4-24 in connection with drafting of the Joint Status Statement for discovery dispute.

2.0 hours claimed by Hannah Theophil for preparation and attendance at the discovery motion hearing on 4-12-24.

2.1 hours claimed by Ebony Randolph on 4-12-24 in connection with assisting Ms. Theophil with preparation for the discovery motion hearing.

1.7 hours claimed by Ebony Randolph on 4-16-24 in connection with revision of the Joint Status Statement for discovery dispute.

In addition, the Court declines to award the $4,000 requested in “anticipated” additional fees in connection with preparation of the reply brief and attendance at the hearing on the instant motion. Based on the information submitted in the declaration of Ms. Baker in support of the reply in this regard, the Court determines to award $1,380 in this regard, which consists of 4.0 hours of time at Ms. Khanna’s stated hourly rate of $345. Therefore, the requested time for these tasks will be reduced in the amount of $2,620.

Reasonable Hourly Rates –

In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the community.  (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  The Court itself has experience in a civil law assignment reviewing and determining numerous attorney fee motions with similarly situated and qualified counsel.   (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49 [the "experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court”].)  The hourly rates are therefore, approved, as set forth in the moving papers and supporting declaration of Payam Shahian.

Multiplier -

The Court exercises its discretion to decline to award a multiplier to increase the fee award in this instance. Plaintiffs have failed to convince the Court that the nature of the case warrants a multiplier herein. Moreover, to the extent that the contingent nature of the recovery factors into this analysis, the Court finds that this element is already reflected in the lodestar fees awarded.

Costs & Expenses

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the moving papers and supporting declaration of Payam Shahian. The scope of expenses recoverable under Civ. Code § 1794(d) is broader than that set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, and the Court finds that the expenses set forth in the motion were reasonably incurred in the prosecution of the instant litigation.

Summary of Award –

 

The Court’s lodestar calculation and total award is as follows:

Timekeeper	Hours	Hourly Rate	Subtotal
Arabi	0.5	525	262.50
Carroll	8.3	595	4,938.50
Carvalho - 2022	0.5	550	275.00
Carvalho - 2023	3.5	570	1,995.00
Carvalho - 2024	1.6	595	952
Law	2.5	495	1,237.50
McCallister	2.6	595	1,547.00
Mejia	3.5	395	1,382.00
Mkrdech	7.2	435	3,132.00
Orte - 2023	3.5	440	1,540.00
Orte - 2024	16.8	495	8,316.00
Randolph – 2023	1.1	375	412.50
Randolph – 2024	16.9	395	6,675.50
Theophil	1.0	395	395
Tirmizi	2.5	395	987.50
Khanna	4.0	345	1,380.00
		Total Fees	35,428.00
		Costs	3,403.48
		AWARD	$38,831.48

CV-24-002399 – CHAVEZ, LEAH vs C&S DRAPERIES INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Pursuant to CCP 473 (D) Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial – DENIED.

The Court finds that the defense’s use of email to notify Plaintiff of the ex parte proceeding was timely and constituted a reasonable method to ensure her ability to participate in the hearing under the circumstances. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1203; Newsom v. Sup.Ct. (Gallagher) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1099.) 

Further, in view of Plaintiff’s assertion that she has now provided her contact telephone number to the defense, she is also instructed to comply with Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(a) and identify that number on future pleadings in the case.

CV-24-008329 – ELSHANI, AMY BURKETT vs HABTE, AXUM – a) Plaintiff/ Cross- Defendant’s Demurrer to Defendant/ Cross- Complainant’s First Amended Cross- Complaint – DROPPED, at the request of the moving party; b) Plaintiff/ Cross- Complaint’s Motion to Strike Certain Allegations Defendant/ Cross- Complainant’s First Amended Cross- Complaint – GRANTED.

b) The Court notes Cross-Complainant’s concession that the challenged allegations do not form the basis of any cause of action alleged in the First Amended Cross-Complaint (which has now been reduced to a sole cause of action for Invasion of Privacy). Therefore, the Court finds that the challenged allegations constitute irrelevant material which should be stricken from the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. §§431.10, 436.)

CV-24-008809 – TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC – Defendant Clear Capital.com Inc’s Verified Application of Joseph M. Katz to Appear Pro Hac Vice – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The application complies with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.  The Court will sign the proposed order.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-20-002695 – RODRIGUEZ, JUDITH vs CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES LLC – Defendant’s Motion for New Trial – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings herein.

Accordingly, this matter is continued to Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-23-003252 – KEYS, JERMAINE LEE vs FLORY INDUSTRIES – Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement – GRANTED, unopposed.

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).

 

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to final approval by this Court. and to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing.

The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

7-3-25	Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator
7-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
9-29-25	Class Deadline for Requests for Exclusion and for Submission of Objections to Settlement
10-20-25	Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator
10-29-25	Deadline for filing any written opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement or any response to an objection to the Settlement,
11-4-25	Deadline for filing any written Reply to Opposition to Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

A final approval hearing in this matter shall be set for November 11, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court.  The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final approval hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-24-002423 – BOLANOS, GREGORIO FLORENCIO vs STANISLAUS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY – Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Answers to Form Interrogatories Form Defendant Transdev Services, Inc –

Plaintiff's Motion for An Order Compelling Further Answers to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Transdev Services, Inc., - WITHDRAWN, at request of moving party.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***