Jane Doe et al vs Cottage Health

"Though Fournier knew that Target's contract with Mitsubishi required Mitsubishi to prepare an incident report identifying the cause of the incident and subsequent repairs addressing that cause, Fournier never reviewed let alone requested such an incident report to be prepared following the June 2021 incident." (PUMF No. 47.)

"On November 15, 2021, Dr. Moore notified the Santa Barbara City Inspector's Office regarding his son's injury. Given the fact that a child had been reported injured, Santa Barbara City Inspector Blackwell was given an " 'emergency assignment' " and was immediately dispatched to the Target location to investigate the complaint. When he arrived at the Target that same day, Blackwell visually inspected the escalators and noted the lower portion of the down escalator was " 'out of adjustment, so that it would allow either a pet or small child to put an extremity in there somehow.' " (PUMF No. 54.)

"Blackwell immediately spoke to the store manager, shut the power off to the escalator, and then barricaded the escalators so they could no longer be used. The Target store manager did not provide any explanation to Blackwell as to why the escalators were still running after such an incident." (PUMF No. 56.)

"On November 16, 2025, Phelan inspects the escalator again following Target's work order request. In Mitsubishi's internal records, Phelan wrote: " 'I did inspections on both escalators today and they are cleared to run by me and the state of California.' " (PUMF No. 58, emphasis omitted.)

"Again, there is no evidence that either Target or Mitsubishi reported this entity to any state agency, let alone had any state agency present on this date." (PUMF No. 59, emphasis omitted.)

These PUMFs, and others, create conflicting inferences that must be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary adjudication. While the court renders no opinion regarding their ability to eventually prove their arguments, by clear and convincing evidence at trial, plaintiffs have submitted evidence that would tend to show managing agents, of both Mitsubishi and Target, engaged in actions, or lack of actions, that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude constitutes conscious disregard for the safety of others. The motion for summary adjudication of punitive damages will be denied.

Tentative Ruling: Peter Leroy Miller vs Samuel Gabriel Long, III et al Tentative Ruling: Peter Leroy Miller vs Samuel Gabriel Long, III et al Case Number 23CV01649 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/26/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion by Partition Referee for Discharge Tentative Ruling On the Court's own motion, the Motion on calendar for Friday, June 26, 2026, at 10 am in Dept. 4 is continued to Friday, July 31, 2026, at 10 am in Dept.

4.

Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe et al vs Cottage Health Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe et al vs Cottage Health Case Number 23CV03679 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Approval Tentative Ruling

On November 14, 2025, plaintiffs Laureen Clavecilla, Steve Crozier, and three other individuals whose identities are sealed due to confidentiality concerns, filed an unopposed motion for an order granting preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiffs and defendant Cottage Health.

On March 20, 2026, the court issued a minute order denying that motion, without prejudice, and continued the matter to April 24, 2026, upon plaintiffs' request to allow time for the parties to finalize an amended settlement agreement and for plaintiffs to file a revised motion for preliminary approval of any amended agreement.

On April 16, the court signed and filed an order granting a joint stipulation by the parties to continue the hearing to May 22, 2026. The court's records show that plaintiffs have not filed any revised motion for preliminary approval of an amended settlement agreement.

Therefore, the court will, at this stage of the proceedings, order the matter off-calendar, without prejudice to the filing of any future motion for preliminary approval of any amended settlement agreement that may be finalized by the parties. The Clerk of the Court is directed to give notice of the court's ruling herein.

Tentative Ruling: Crystal Hernandez et al vs Alan Moelleken et al Tentative Ruling: Crystal Hernandez et al vs Alan Moelleken et al Case Number 24CV00261 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Motion Approval Tentative Ruling Crystal Hernandez v. Alan Moelleken, et al. Case No. 24CV00261 Hearing Date: June 12, 2026 HEARING: Motion of Plaintiff Crystal Hernandez for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and PAGA Settlement ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Crystal Hernandez: Jonathan P.

LaCour, Lisa Noveck, Jameson Evans, Amanda M. Thompson For Defendants Carrillo Surgery Center, Inc., Central Valley Surgery Center, Inc., OSF Medical Group of California, Inc., California Medical and Surgical Management Group, Inc., and Alan Moelleken: Jeffrey A. Dinkin, Jared W. Speier, Lindsay L. Bowden, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP TENTATIVE RULING: For all reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiff Crystal Hernandez for preliminary approval of class action settlement and PAGA settlement is ordered off-calendar.

Plaintiff may file a new motion supported by a full set of new supporting papers if a revised settlement is executed by the parties.

Background: On January 18, 2024, plaintiff Crystal Hernandez (Plaintiff) filed this action (Individual/PAGA Case) against defendants Carrillo Surgery Center, Inc., Central Valley Surgery Center, Inc., OSF Medical Group of California, Inc., California Medical and Surgical Management Group, Inc., and Alan Moelleken (collectively, Defendants).

The complaint sets forth 13 causes of action (COAs) for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, and wage order No. 5; (2) failure to furnish wage and hour statements, Labor Code sections 226 and 226.3; (3) failure to maintain payroll records, Labor Code sections 1174 and 1174.5; (4) failure to provide meal and rest period compensation, Labor Code section 226.7; (5) failure to pay