Hearing on Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY CARBAJAL vs DESIRE CVRI2200797 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION HOME CARE, INC. SETTLEMENT Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested:
1. Confirm that defense counsel/defendant made a reasonable inquiry as to whether there are any other cases in which any class, collective, or representative claims similar to those in this case are made.
2. Discuss when payment to class members will be made, given the installment payment proposed.
3. Add to notice the full title and date of filing of the document to which the settlement agreement is attached (Declaration of Jill J. Parker in Support of Plaintiff’s Motino for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement filed July 21, 2026, Ex. 1.).
4. Date for final approval hearing (order, ¶ 16).
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CUEVAS vs TMI CVRI2304340 AUTOMOTIVE HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL PRODUCTS INC. Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested to discuss:
1. Is it necessary to attach the settlement agreement to the order/judgment? Perhaps refer to it by what document filed in the case it was attached to (Declaration of Arrash T. Fattahi filed December 29, 2025 as Ex. 3)?
2. Why does the judgment state that class members will release PAGA claims and not just the State and the named plaintiffs? Maybe add a reference to Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969 (“a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government. . . . Accordingly, with respect to the recovery of civil penalties, nonparty employees as well as the government are bound by the judgment in an action brought under the act”).
3. Add to order the fee split among plaintiffs’ counsel’s firms (and confirm that each plaintiff has given informed written consent to the fee split). CMO ¶ H.11 4. Add to judgment that the settlement checks will be valid for at least 90 days.
5. Add to judgment that the administrator will enclose the settlement check in an envelope stating, “YOUR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMNET CHECK IS ENCLOSED.” CMO ¶ H.8.
6. Add to judgment that the administrator will send a reminder postcard to anyone who hasn’t cashed their check within 60 days. CMO ¶ H.8 7. Add the language from the CMO re distribution to current employees of defendant. CMO ¶ H.8(d)
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?”
8. Add to judgment who will give notice of entry of judgment, the text of the notice, and how it will be given. CMO ¶ H.15 9. Need to select date to review administrator’s report (judgment, ¶ 28).
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ALONZO vs COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, OPERATING DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED CVRI2600512 AS RIVERSIDE COMPLAINT UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM Tentative Ruling:
Grant requests for judicial notice, except for Ex. E. County demurs to the First Amended Complaint on two grounds: (1) the pleading fails as a matter of law because the Labor Code section 512.1 does not apply to the County; and (2) pleading discloses a defense to the action that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust for administrative remedies through the grievance procedures set forth in the County’s MOU with the labor union and hence the action is barred. These arguments fail. The inapplicability of Labor Code section 512.1 cannot be inferred from the allegations in the pleading or matters judicially noticeable. Furthermore, the defense based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies cannot reasonably be inferred from the allegations of the pleading or matters judicially noticeable.
Overrule; 20 days to answer.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ALONZO vs COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, OPERATING MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST AMENDED CVRI2600512 AS RIVERSIDE COMPLAINT UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM Tentative Ruling: Withdrawn on August 7.