GODINEZ, JOSE vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS

represented that the motions had been filed with the Court. In its reply brief, Plaintiff states the May 28, 2026 "draft motions" were never filed with the Court and instead were served to facilitate efforts to resolve the disputes without judicial intervention.

But on May 29, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that at least one "motion has already been filed." On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff sent an email stating that it filed the motions a second time "due to a clerk request to correct filing selection" and stating that it would "withdraw the motions for now." Plaintiff stated that the motions had been filed and never accepted the offer to extend the deadlines. There is no written agreement extending the deadline. Plaintiff waived any right to compel further responses, and sanctions predicated on an untimely motion are improper.

Defendant argues that sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff for filing untimely motions. While the Court acknowledges other procedural irregularities in the motion, there is good cause not to issue sanctions under these circumstances.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-003194 - GODINEZ, JOSE vs FOSTER DAIRY FARMS - Compliance Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure 384 - DROPPED.

On June 30, 2026, the Settlement Administrator submitted a declaration stating that there were 123 uncashed checks totaling $19,329.52 that remain uncashed after the deadline. The declaration further states that once directed by the Court or counsel, the settlement administrator will remit all uncashed funds to the State Controller's Office - Unclaimed Property Fund pursuant to the terms of the settlement.

On August 4, 2026, Class Counsel submitted a proposed amended judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds be distributed to the State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund. The Court signed the amended judgment on August 4, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 384.5, the court directs the clerk to transmit a copy of the amended judgment along with the original judgment to the Judicial Council for completion of the report required by Section 68520 of the Government Code. As it appears that all payment obligations regarding the settlement agreement have now been fulfilled, the compliance hearing is DROPPED.

CV-26-000992 - ITRIA VENTURES LLC vs PROTECH PHONE REPAIR INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication - GRANTED, and unopposed.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Governing Law

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) Because summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the moving party's evidence is strictly construed and the opposing party's evidence is liberally construed, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party. (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.) However, when a motion is unopposed, and the movant's evidence establishes each required element, summary judgment is appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(c).)

In addition to moving for summary judgment, "[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication proceeds in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(f)(2).)

Merits of Summary Judgment