Plaintiff's Motion for Substitution of Successor in Interest for Deceased Plaintiff
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