By Defendants M Xpress, Inc. and Narinder Singh for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
(37) Tentative Ruling
Re: Ortiz v. M Xpress Inc. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG04233
Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: By Defendants M Xpress, Inc. and Narinder Singh for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Tentative Ruling:
To continue the matter to Tuesday, August 4, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. in Department 503. An amended proof of service and declaration shall be filed and served no later than July 14, 2026.
Explanation:
On March 5, 2026, defendants filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement. The motion, Declaration of Gayle M. Kono, and proof of service are all unsigned. Documents filed electronically and not under penalty of perjury, can be deemed signed by the person who filed it electronically. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (e)(2)(A); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.257(c).) Documents under penalty of perjury are deemed signed if filed electronically if the person signed a printed copy of the document before the filing or signed using an electronic signature. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (e)(2)(B); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.257(b).) These conditions are not met for the declaration or the proof of service, both of which are under penalty of perjury and have a blank space where a signature would appear. The matter is being continued for counsel to remedy these issues and perfect service of the motion.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: JS on 6/15/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
11
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”