BAJO-ISLAS v. ROSSETTAS ENTERPRISES, INC.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 25CV04159

BAJO-ISLAS v. ROSSETTAS ENTERPRISES, INC.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT

The motion is granted.

The Court finds that the settlement falls within a range of reasonableness and is presumptively valid; appears to be a product of serious, informed and non-collusive negotiations; and has no obvious deficiencies. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement; conditionally certifies the class; and approves the class notice as to form and content provided the Notice is issued in both English and Spanish languages.

Counsel should appear to set a final hearing on the question of whether the proposed class action settlement, class counsel’s fees and expenses, the class representative’s enhancement award, and the administrator’s fees and costs should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to the members of the settlement class.

No. 25CV00917

JAMBA CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. VNH BUILDERS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT OF VNH BUILDERS