Final Fairness Hearing
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
b) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
c) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.)
Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov in this regard, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is also entitled to the mandatory sanction award provided for in Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2023.050 in this instance. Therefore, an additional monetary sanction in the amount of $1,000 is awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
Plaintiff shall submit a revised order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-22-004659 - PONCE, CHRISTIAN vs CALIFORNIA DAIRIES INC - Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein.
In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec.384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for February 26, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than February 19, 2027, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement. At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Civ. Code Sec.1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).)
CV-24-008369 - CHRISTIANSEN, JOSEPH vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC - Defendant Save Mart
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?”