DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-0206490·shasta·Civil·Labor and Employment
Hearing about 2 months agoAPPEARANCE REQUIRED

JOHANSON VS. NORTH STATE GROCERY, INC

Early Evaluation Conference

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJohanson
DefendantNorth State Grocery, Inc.

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0206490 Tentative Ruling on Early Evaluation Conference:

On August 25, 2025, Defendant North State Grocery, Inc. filed a “Request for Early Evaluation Conference.”

On February 9, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s request and issued a detailed tentative ruling outlining the requirements of the Early Evaluation Conference as provided in Labor Code section 2699.3(f). Defendant was instructed to submit a proposed order. On March 30, 2026, the Court issued the proposed order submitted by Defendant. The order did not contain the deadlines required by Labor Code section 2699.3. Regardless of whether the deadlines were included in the order, Defendant was aware of the deadlines based on the Court’s prior ruling for the February 9, 2026 hearing.

An issue has now arisen about Defendant’s compliance with the requirements of section 2699.3(f) and whether this Court can issue a further Early Evaluation Conference or extend the statutory timeframes found in section 2699.3(f). The Court invited briefing on the matter. Plaintiff’s briefing opposes a further Early Evaluation Conference, while Defendant’s briefing argues for the process to proceed.

The Court has reviewed section 2699.3 and finds that the statutory deadlines cannot be satisfied based on the conduct of the Defendant. The Court intends on lifting the stay and allowing the litigation to proceed but will hear from the parties at the time of the hearing. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide argument related to a further Early Evaluation Conference.

LOZANO VS. COUNTY OF SHASTA

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share