Curiel v. Motivational Marketing LLC, et al
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
benefits every time an independent dealership sells or leases one if its vehicles; the dealership intended to benefit Defendant by expressly naming it; and the Plaintiffs knew or reasonable could have known that the arbitration was intended to benefit it.
*** *** ***
18. Curiel v. Motivational Marketing LLC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2310932 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 5/12/26, 1:30 p.m., Dept. S-17 The Court would CONTINUE the matter to allow for a Second Amended Complaint to add Ivette Aguilar as a named Plaintiff. Initially, Ivette Aguilar filed a separate action (CIVSB2317884). Here, the settlement agreement and motion seek to have her named as a Representative Plaintiff in this separate proceeding filed by Plaintiff Curiel (CIVSB2310932). However, Aguilar is not a named plaintiff in this matter. Notably, a First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on April 3, 2024, to expand the claims to include a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cause. However, the FAC failed to add Aguilar as a named Plaintiff. The Court declines to add Aguilar as a named Plaintiff here sua sponte, and it would continue the matter to allow a Second Amended Complaint naming Aguilar.
*** *** ***
4
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.