Mustain, William v. Johnson, Richard Wayne

10. S-CV-0051463 Lincoln Hills v. Sun City Lincoln Hills

Review Hearing

Appearance of the parties is required on June 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 20 before the Honorable Angus Saint-Evens. Department 20 is located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.

11. S-CV-0051751 Ghaffari-Monazzah, Parto v. Lee West, Christa

Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor

The petition for approval of minor’s compromise claim is granted. After careful consideration of the petition and attachments, the court finds the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. (Prob. Code, § 3500; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337-38.)

12. S-CV-0052071 Mustain, William v. Johnson, Richard Wayne

Motion for Final Approval

The unopposed motion is granted. The court has broad discretion to determine whether a class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (In re Cellphone Fee Termination Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1389.) When reviewing the fairness of the settlement, the court is to give due regard to the parties’ agreement, ensuring that the agreement is not a product of fraud, overreaching parties, or collusion and that the settlement, as a whole, is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v.

Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145.) A presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement was reached through arms-length bargaining; (2) the investigation and discovery were sufficient to allow class counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) class counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) there is a small percentage of objectors. (Ibid.)

Further, the court reviews the moving papers along with the entirety of the court file to determine that the settlement is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the underlying purposes of the PAGA-related statute. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l); O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110.) The court must also determine whether the PAGA settlement appears fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate. (O’Connor, supra, 201 F.Supp.3d at p. 1120.)

The court has carefully reviewed and considered the class action and PAGA action settlement agreement and plaintiff’s moving papers and declarations submitted in support thereof. The court determines a sufficient showing has been made that the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court further determines a sufficient showing has been made that the settlement is fair, reasonable, genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the purpose of PAGA.

The court grants final approval of the class action and PAGA action settlement and approves the attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award.

The court retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (h).)

The court schedules this matter for a final accounting hearing on November 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32. Plaintiff shall file and serve a final accounting status report by no later than November 3, 2026.

13. S-CV-0052591 Germany, Steven E v. Bains, Jazmin

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Sutter Roseville Medical Center (erroneously sued as Sutter Roseville Medical Center Foundation) and Sutter Health (collectively, “SRMC”) move the court for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 437c. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Preliminary Matters

Defendants object by way of reply brief to the declaration of plaintiff Steven E. Germany filed together with the opposition brief on May 27, 2026. However, as defendants’ objection does not comply with Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court, the objection is overruled.

Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental declaration of plaintiff Steven E. Germany on June 5, 2026—after the briefing period for any opposition had already expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(2).) Defendants object to the court considering the supplemental declaration. The court sustains the objection and does not consider plaintiffs’ supplemental declaration.

Ruling on the Motion

A party is entitled to bring a motion for summary judgment where there are no triable issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Id. subd. (p)(2).) Only when this initial burden is met does the burden shift to the opposing party to show a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action if the party contends the cause of action has no merit. (Id. subd. (f)(1).) A party may move for summary adjudication as an alternative to summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Id. subd. (f)(2).) In reviewing a

9