Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
The Court is inclined to grant the motion subject to the required hearing, based on its initial finding that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating it is entitled prejudgment possession by eminent domain of (1) a fee interest of 7,758 square feet, (2) an access easement 9,576 square feet and (3) a drainage easement of 18,569 square feet via eminent domain over portions of the real property located at 531 N. Hart Road, Modesto, County of Stanislaus, California, and bearing Stanislaus County Assessor's Parcel Number 012-042-018 ("Larger Property"), for its planned State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway Project for the public benefit and for all uses necessary, incidental and convenient thereto pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.
The Court further finds Plaintiff has, based on an appraisal, deposited the sum of $122,000.00 into the State Treasury as probable compensation that will be awarded Defendants in the eminent domain proceeding. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 1255.410 and 1255.010 et seq.).
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated an overriding need to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in herein, and that Plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited. Further, the hardship to the Plaintiff of denying immediate possession outweighs the hardship to the Defendant of granting immediate possession. (Robinson v. Superior Ct., (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 1144).
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-008326 - PAYNE, KELLIE vs MOCSE CREDIT UNION - Defendant Mocse Credit Union's Motion to Stay Proceedings - GRANTED, and unopposed. Despite the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1294, as amended, the Court retains discretion to stay further proceedings in the interest of justice. (See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Amerisourcebergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14). Therefore, based on the moving papers, and in view of the lack of opposition herein, the Court finds, in the interest of justice, that further proceedings in the instant action should be STAYED pending the determination of the appeal of the Court's previous order denying arbitration.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CV-24-009764 - CISNEROS, FRANK vs RIVETS AMERICAN GRILL INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court, and subject to clarification of the following issues by the parties:
The Court notes the designation of "Without Permission" as the cy pres recipient of unclaimed settlement funds herein; however, the motion fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to conclude that its designation complies with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 384, which specifies that the unclaimed residual should be distributed "to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent." Counsel shall ensure that the proper information is presented to the Court in this regard at the time of the final approval motion.
The Court notes that the parties' agreement calls for funding of the settlement in 2 separate installment payments, with the provision that the administrator will disburse settlement funds after each payment. This requirement seems to be at odds with the information provided in the Class Notice, which advises class members that their respective portions of the settlement will be disbursed in "a single check." This language may be misleading in the event that a class member receives multiple settlement disbursements in connection with the defense's installment payments. Counsel shall meet and confer to resolve this issue and shall be prepared to demonstrate the same to the Court at the time of the final approval motion.
Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter: 8-10-26 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator 8-24-26 Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members. 10-23-26 Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds 5-14-27 Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval
A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for June 8, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this court. The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
CV-25-009269 - EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant County of Stanislaus's Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant failed to submit proof of service of the instant motion on Defendants City of Modesto and Sam Cullom. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1014.)
CV-23-004326 - WIGGINS, JOSHUA vs COLEMAN, TIMOTHY - a) Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena of Personal Appearance of Kelly Garner - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 31, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance of Angelo Gonzalez and/or for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff's Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) Due to the parties' late submission of the required Joint Status Statement, together with the parties' representation that no compromise has been reached on any of the issues described in the instant motion, the Court requires more time to review the papers in this matter.
b) In view of the lack of opposition to the defense's evidence that Mr. Gonzalez is not a resident of the state of California, it appears that he cannot be compelled to testify at the trial of this matter. (See, e.g. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107.)
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-24-007633 - HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order #1 - DENIED. The Court finds that Plaintiff's 3/20/26 Motion for Sanctions for Misuse of the Discovery Process Against Zen and Attorney of Record, Jointly and Severally, which resulted in the issuance of the challenged 5/20/26 ruling, was based on substantially the same conduct by Defendant and their Counsel as alleged in Plaintiff's 1/8/26 Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents on Defendant and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Zen and its Attorney Jointly and Severally and to Hold Attorney Kallis in Contempt of Court; and Defendant's failure to comply with the Court's Order of 11/14/25 to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Additionally, both motions sought monetary sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs.
Therefore, regardless of the fact that Plaintiff's 1/8/26 motion was brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2031.310 (h) and 1008 (b), and Plaintiff's 3/20/26 motion was brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2023.010, the Court properly considered the 3/20/26 motion a rehash of the 1/8/26 motion and declined to reconsider its prior 3/12/26 ruling and award the requested sanctions.
Notably, a court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision of the Act. City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 46. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant engaged in an unusual form of discovery abuse or a pattern of abuse not already addressed by a relevant provision of the Act that required the invocation of the Court's independent authority to impose sanctions under different