Motion for approval of a PAGA settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Relevant here, "[w]here the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the Court sitting without a jury. All or part of the record of the proceedings before the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer may be filed with the petition, may be filed with Respondent's points and authorities, or may be ordered to be filed by the Court. Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the Petitioner." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1094.5, subd. (a).)
Court records reflect that the administrative record ostensibly at issue in these proceedings was not filed with the petition, which does not include any exhibits. Though the memorandum filed by Petitioner in support of the petition asserts that the Court must exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the administrative record, the exhibits to that memorandum, and the index to those exhibits, do not appear to include a complete copy of the record of any proceedings ostensibly at issue here.
The Court has also reviewed the declarations and supplemental declarations filed by Petitioner in support of the petition, including the supplemental declarations filed on June 1 and 15, 2026. Those declarations also do not include an administrative record. In addition, the petition and the memorandum filed in support of the petition present no information, evidence, or reasoned argument showing why an administrative record does not exist, why the Court is not required to review any administrative record, or why an exception to the general rule further discussed above applies under the circumstances present here. Petitioner also presents no information or evidence showing why the complete administrative record of which Petitioner seeks review was filed with the Court.
The response of Respondents to the petition, which is supported by a declaration of Fredericks, also does not include an administrative record, and includes no information or evidence showing why an administrative record does not exist. Instead, that response asserts that on February 1, 2023, Vadas' Section 8 Housing Choice voucher was transferred to Petitioner's address; that Petitioner lived rent free pursuant to the terms of the 2023 Agreement; that Petitioner's actions entitled Petitioner to earn an income through the IHSS program; that Petitioner was never classified as a "family member" or "household member" of Vadas; and that the Housing Authority responded to Petitioner's November 12, 2025, letter on November 18, 2025. (Response at pp. 2-3, 5 [arguing that Petitioner lacks standing].)
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?”
In an administrative mandamus action, "[c]ourt review 'is limited to issues in the record at the administrative level.' [Citation.]" (Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 705, 715.) "The general rule is that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency." (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881.) "Generally, '[i]n a section 1094.5 proceeding, it is the responsibility of the Petitioner to produce a sufficient record of the administrative proceedings; "... otherwise the presumption of regularity will prevail.... [Citations.]" ' [Citation.]" (Weinberg v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107.)
For the reasons discussed above, the status of production of the administrative record in this matter is presently unclear. Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing on the petition to allow sufficient time for the production and filing of the administrative record by Petitioner. To the extent either Petitioner or Respondents contend that the production of an administrative record has been made or is not required in these proceedings, that party shall file and serve, in advance of the continued hearing, a supplemental brief explaining, with reasoned argument, why the production of an administrative record has been made or is not required. The parties shall not, apart from the administrative record or the supplemental briefing described herein and absent further Court order, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the petition.
Tentative Ruling: Elizabeth Petersen v Sunrun Inc Tentative Ruling: Elizabeth Petersen v Sunrun Inc Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings This is a motion for approval of a PAGA settlement.
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff: Reuben Nathan Defendant: Brett Young Issue This is a motion for approval of a PAGA settlement. RULING On June 10, 2026, the Plaintiff in a similar action pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court filed a petition with the Judicial Council to coordinate actions, including this one, and seeking a stay pending determination of the coordination motion. Thus, the hearing on this motion is continued to Wednesday August 12, 2026, at 10 am to find out whether the request for stay is granted. Status Briefs due August 5, 2026.
Analysis
The unverified complaint was filed 5/20/26. This is a representative action brought pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for Defendants' alleged violations of the Labor Code. An Answer via a General Denial and 19 Affirmative Defenses was filed on 5/27/26. On 6/1/26 Plaintiff's attorney filed declarations in support of Plaintiff's ["unopposed"] Motion. On 6/4/26 Sunrun Inc's attorney filed a Notice of Related Case(s): Title: Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc.
Case number: 22STCV25672 Title: Santana v. Sunrun Inc., et al. Case number: 23STCV04257 Title: Gillette v. Sunrun Inc., et al Case number: 24STCV03326 The cases are "pending" in Department 10 in Los Angeles County. AND Title: Main et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al. Case Number: 26CUB00447 This case is "pending" in Kern County Superior Court Department H. On 6/9/26 Plaintiff's attorney filed a supplemental declaration. On 6/10/26 the Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner Angel Mondragon filed a 400 page Notice of Submission of Renewed Coordination of Actions [identifies 7 lawsuits] and reports there has been submitted a Petition for Coordination of Actions to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council for an order coordinating 7 actions including Elizabeth Petersen v.
Sunrun Inc., Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 26CV03332 (the "Petersen Action" and collectively, the "Actions"). Just recently the Attorneys for Plaintiff Elizabeth Petersen submitted a [Proposed] Order AND an Amended [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of PAGA settlement.
The Court's Conclusion The case should be continued because this Court did not find in its computer a definitive answer to the question of whether these cases were "coordinated."
Tentative Ruling: Deja Rabb vs Natalie Urik Tentative Ruling: Deja Rabb vs Natalie Urik Case Number