EDDIE ZHANG VS. VERITABLE VEGETABLE, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC22603150 - March 16, 2026 Hearing date: March 16, 2026 Case number: CGC22603150 Case title: EDDIE ZHANG VS. VERITABLE VEGETABLE, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22603150 | Case Title: | | EDDIE ZHANG VS. VERITABLE VEGETABLE, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-03-16 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Entry Of Amended Final Judgement | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, March 16, 2026, Line 5, PLAINTIFF EDDIE ZHANG INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED'S Notice Of Motion And Motion For Entry Of Amended Final Judgement.

Plaintiff Eddie Zhang's unopposed Motion For Entry Of Amended Final Judgement is DENIED. The court cannot grant the motion because there is no judgment to amend. The court finds it has not yet entered any judgment in this action. Contrary to Plaintiff's claims. the court's 9/24/2024 order is not a judgment. The 9/24/2024 Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is, as the name suggests and its substance demonstrates, an order. Nothing in the order even suggests it is a judgment. Plaintiff may have "requested" a final judgment, but he did not secure one.

Second, the court is greatly troubled by Counsel Alexander G.L. Davies's misrepresentation of the record. Davies testifies the court entered a document called "Order Granting Final Approval and Entering Judgment" and states the order and judgment is attached to his declaration as Exhibit A. (See Davies Decl. at para. 4.) Exhibit A is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, not an order and judgment. Davies may have meant to refer to Exhibit B (an understandable scrivener's error), but Exhibit B is the court's 9/24/2024 Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. It is not, as Davies represents, captioned "Order Granting Final Approval and Entering Judgment," and as already noted it is not by name or substance a judgment. Davies's testimony misrepresents the record in an apparent attempt to mislead the court to believe it previously entered a judgment (which it didn't).

Third, the court is concerned and troubled by the fact that 33% of the checks for class members/aggrieved parties were returned. This rate of unclaimed funds raises concerns regarding the notices and distribution of funds and whether they were appropriately designed or adequate to accomplish the intended objectives.

Fourth, the court is not convinced Plaintiff should retain the unclaimed funds until June 15, 2026, which appears to be the State Controller's last day for submission. (See MPA at p. 4.) Why not submit the funds sooner?

Fifth, if Plaintiff files a motion for entry of judgment (as opposed to an amended judgment), Plaintiff must propose a simple judgment. A judgment must be a spare, free-standing document that in a case such as this references the final approval order, identifies the class, the opt outs, the relief ordered (i.e., gross settlement amount and the releases), the authorized distribution of the relief, the retention of jurisdiction under CRC 3.769(h) and articulates that it is a final judgment. If any party believes the judgment should include less or more, they will need to propose specific omissions or additions and explain why they are necessary or appropriate. The court, however, has no intention to enter a judgment that is substantially identical to the 9/24/2026 order with all of its findings, which may be appropriate for final approval order but are not appropriate for a judgment. If Plaintiff files a motion for entry of judgment, he must include this order as an exhibit and address the issues raised above.