Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related discovery motions on calendar that day.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-21-006265 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs ROBERSON, PAMELA J - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Based on the moving papers, the declarations of counsel and Mr. Cromwell and the attached evidence, and the Court's order deeming matters admitted on 5-23-24, as well as the lack of opposition hereto, the Court finds that the Petitioner, as the moving party, has demonstrated fulfillment of the statutory requirements for forfeiture of the subject funds and is entitled to judgment herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(1); Health & Saf. Code Sec.Sec. 11470(f), 11488.4, and 11488.5, et seq.)
In addition, Petitioner has established that Ms. Roberson has no interest in the subject funds and no legal basis upon which to assert a claim herein. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 11488(g).)
CV-24-002516 - HERNANDEZ, ESTEVON MACIEL vs ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION & METAL LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and 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 Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).
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: 7-9-26 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator 7-23-26 Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members. 9-8-26 Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds 10-20-26 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval
However, the Court has concerns with regard to the language included in the settlement agreement regarding the scope of claims released by the class.
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?”
Specifically, the Court questions the broad inclusion of any and all potential claims that "could have been" asserted in the action and whether the scope of the release is sufficiently tethered to the facts at issue in this action to prevent the class members' unintended release of unrelated and/or unforeseen claims.
Consequently, the Court instructs counsel to confer with the goal of addressing this issue, potentially by amendment to clarify the language, and to present the Court with additional information in this regard at the time of the final approval hearing.
The parties are strongly cautioned that the Court will be reluctant to grant final approval if this issue is not satisfactorily addressed.
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for November 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court.
The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
CV-25-006820 - HOWARD, JANICE vs GARDEN EAST APARTMENTS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Order Substituting Successor in Interest Danny Howard for Deceased Plaintiff - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court notes a discrepancy in the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff's counsel, in that it incorrectly asks the court to conclude that Mr. Howard is the decedent's personal representative.
Counsel shall submit a revised form of order which correctly reflects Mr. Howard's status as the deceased plaintiff's successor-in-interest herein.
CV-25-006991 - VELEZ, PEDRO vs SILVA INJURY LAW - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Second Amended Complaint - DENIED.