Minguela, et al, v. American Quartz Max Corp.
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
17. Minguela, et al, v. American Quartz Max Corp., Case No. CIVSB2226990 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 5/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would CONTINUE this matter since insufficient notice was provided on the motion. Notice was filed with the Court on April 22, 2026, showing electronic service that same day. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005(b), “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” While the notice was filed with more than 16 calendar days’ notice, it was not filed with 16 court days’ notice. Thus, the matter must be continued to allow sufficient notice under the Code. While the Court is cognizant that this appears to be an unopposed motion, the Court made no order granting shortened notice. Additionally, the Court needs an estimation of the number of PAGA aggrieved employees and an assessment of the reasonableness of the PAGA aspect of the settlement, neither of which appear to be included with the submitted papers. (See Settlement, ¶8.3 [simply asserting the parties’ belief that the PAGA settlement is reasonable].)
*** *** ***
7
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.