ROMERO, ROGER vs SCROGGINS, JAMES EDWARD, Jr

discussion is reflected in the supporting memorandum, Counsel's declaration is the only admissible evidence in support of the motion and should reflect the required discussion therein.

Lastly, the Court has concerns with regard to the language included in the settlement agreement regarding the scope of claims released by the class. Specifically, the Court questions the broad inclusion of any and all potential claims that "could have been" asserted in the action and whether the scope of the release is sufficiently tethered to the facts at issue in this action to prevent the class members' unintended release of unrelated and/or unforeseen claims. Consequently, the Court instructs counsel to confer with the goal of addressing this issue, potentially by amendment to clarify the language, and to present the Court with additional information in this regard upon resubmission of the instant motion. The parties are strongly cautioned that the Court will be reluctant to approve the settlement if this issue is not satisfactorily addressed.

CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [CCP 473(A)(1), 576; CRC 3.1324] - DENIED. While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.) Specifically, the necessity of amendment appears to rest on discovery responses which do not provide factual support for the proposed claim against Sutter Health herein.

Therefore, the Court finds that granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the legal theory Plaintiff seeks to allege against Sutter Health lacks merit. (See, e.g. (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 652.) Additionally, the record reveals Plaintiff's lack of diligence in conducting discovery with regard to potential claims against Sutter Health and her unreasonable delay in bringing the subject motion. More significantly, the Court finds that the above factors, combined with Plaintiff's concession in repeated amended pleadings that Sutter Health was improperly named, misled Defendant with regard to Plaintiff's intentions in the case and the need to mount a defense thereto, resulting in prejudice to Defendant which further supports the denial of the motion.

CV-25-002020 - SALAS, OSCAR vs HINOJOSA, VIVIANA - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED. The effectiveness of the order shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is submitted. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).) In addition, the proposed order should be corrected to accurately reflect the future Case Management Conference set on 9-14-26. Counsel shall submit a revised order in compliance with this ruling.

CV-25-002490 - ROMERO, ROGER vs SCROGGINS, JAMES EDWARD, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 - DENIED. Plaintiff's motion is not proper under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 663, as it fails to seek entry of a "new and different judgment," as envisioned by that statute, and instead seeks to vacate the entry of judgment and return the case for trial. (See, e.g. Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203-203.) Moreover, while the law permits the Court to treat the motion as one for new trial pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 657, Plaintiff has nevertheless failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief under that section.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-23-004868 - VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUE vs SOTO, LUIS - Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff's motion. At Plaintiffs' request and based on the continued implementation of the parties' Settlement Agreement, this matter is continued to February 19th, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-008594 - DISCOVER BANK vs SHAMA, JASMINE P - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of November 26, 2024, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.