CHRISTIANSEN, JOSEPH vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC

Plaintiff's discovery requests: $385.00 Meet-and-confer correspondence: $1,298.00 Customer service representative deposition notice: $287.50 Review of GM's discovery responses: $440.00 Motion to compel PMK deposition: $935.00 Review of motions in limine: $275.00 Fee motion work: $3,860.00 Administrative/file-management tasks: $1,222.00 Duplicate review of document production: $550.00

The total fee reduction is $9,857.50. Accordingly, the requested lodestar of $43,651.50 is reduced by $9,857.50, for an adjusted attorney fee award of $33,794.00. The request for a multiplier is denied. Although Plaintiff obtained a favorable result and counsel accepted the matter on a contingent basis, this case did not involve unusually novel or complex issues, did not proceed to trial, and the lodestar adequately compensates counsel for the work reasonably performed.

As to costs, Plaintiff seeks $2,481.12. Defendant's objections are granted in part. The Court disallows the $550.00 anticipated court reporter fee for the fee motion hearing. The remaining costs are allowed. Allowed costs are therefore $1,931.12

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is therefore GRANTED IN PART as follows: Attorney Fees: $33,794.00 Costs: $1,931.12 Total Award: $35,725.12

The request for a multiplier is denied. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order within five (5) court days of this ruling.

CV-24-008369 - CHRISTIANSEN, JOSEPH vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC - Defendant Save Mart Supermarket, LLC's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Deposition of Person Most Qualified from Save Mart Supermarkets LLC and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.

The Court notes an important point of agreement between the parties, i.e. the collaboration on Bel-Aire West Notices, as well as Defendant's indication to Plaintiffs that it is in possession of the entire class list data. The Court also notes prior discussions between Defendants and prior Class Counsel about any overlapping discovery herein. The Court acknowledge the parties meet and confer efforts but is confident that Court that given the foregoing, further meet and confer between the parties will go a long way towards resolving the present discovery dispute.

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to further meet and confer ordered to engage in further meet and confer "either in person, by telephone or by videoconference" to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery of relevant information and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2016.040; 2017.010).

Parties are also reminded that civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

Additionally, good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

Consequently, the Court CONTINUES this matter to August 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for said meet and confer. The parties are further ordered to then file a joint statement by August 5, 2026, describing the efforts to meet-and-confer and any narrowing or resolution of the issues. Should counsel for the parties be unable to compromise, then they are directed to report in person at the continued hearing date and time and to come with the expectation of spending several hours further meeting and conferring face-to-face at the courthouse. (I borrowed this from Monica's TR).

CV-25-009145 - VARGAS, JOSEPH vs PAIONI, WILLIAM - Defendant William Paioni's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to CCP 418.10 - GRANTED.

The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return. (Evid. Code Sec. 647).

Even if the Court were to find that that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating statutorily compliant effective service of its Writ of Summons and Complaint herein upon Defendant herein, the effect of a notice of motion to quash service of process is to place upon the plaintiff the burden of proving facts that gave the court jurisdiction, that is, facts requisite to an effective service. (Code of Civ Procedure sections 415.10 and 415.20; Coulston v Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866).

Furthermore, a party's declaration of non-service, if credited by the trial court, can rebut the presumption of proper service established by the return of a registered process server. (Fernandes v. Singh, (2017), 16 Cal. App. 5th 932 as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 2, 2017)

The Court finds Defendant' declaration in conjunction with Plaintiff's concession that the Writ of Summons and Complaint were served upon Defendant's estranged wife sufficient to rebut the presumption of service. (Fernandes v. Singh, (2017), 16 Cal. App. 5th 932 as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 2, 2017); American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara App. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 38).

Additionally, assuming that actual notice could amount to valid service based on a finding of substantial compliance over a Defendant's objection that service did not comply with statutory requirements, in view of the fact that the record does not show partial or colorable compliance with the requirement of service on Defendant at his "dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age" the Court finds ineffective service herein and that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Defendant. (Civ.

Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 415.10 and 415.20; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara, supra, at p. 391).

Defendant's motion is therefore granted. The purported service of Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Complaint on Defendant William Paioni is hereby quashed. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 418.10)

Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evidence Code Sec. 452 (d)).

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***