CEJA, REGINA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

With regard to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Gross Negligence, the Court finds that California law does not support an independent cause of action for gross negligence, which differs from ordinary negligence in degree, not in kind. (Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 44, 55-56.) As the pleading already asserts a cause of action for negligence, this claim is duplicative and unnecessary; therefore, the demurrer to the Eleventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

With regard to the Sixteenth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting, the Court finds that the factual allegations do not state facts supporting a conscious decision by the moving defendant to participate in and render substantial assistance to Dr. Altman's alleged tortious activity. (See, e.g., George v. eBay, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 620, 641-642; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 879.) Therefore, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

The Court finds that the remaining challenged claims are sufficiently alleged at this stage of the case. Therefore, the demurrer to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Causes of Action is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs shall submit their Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

b) The motion to strike is MOOT in view of the Court's ruling on the demurrer, above.

CV-26-002449 - BLACK, DAWN vs ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF PHOENIX LLC - Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of San Francisco, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED. The Court finds that the pleading sufficiently states the subject causes of action at this stage of the litigation. Moreover, it appears that the demurrer rests, in part, on the existence of extrinsic facts, which are inappropriate for consideration on demurrer.

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

CV-21-001167 - ELIZONDO, AARON vs KCB VENTURES INC - Defendant, Tejinderpaul Chahal's, Motion for an Order That Requests for Admissions, Set One, to Defendant, ADCOMM, Inc., Be Deemed Admitted - DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the court records identified in the request, including Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Chahal's prior Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, the Court's order granting that motion, and the Notice of Ruling. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Merits Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admission, Set One, to Defendant Adcomm, Inc. Admitted is DENIED. The motion is procedurally defective. Chahal's own moving papers establish that Adcomm served responses to the requests for admission on October 29, 2025. Although those responses allegedly consisted solely of objections and no substantive responses, Chahal acknowledged the existence of those responses by filing a motion to compel further responses, which the Court granted on April 7, 2026.

Because responses were served, this is not a circumstance in which the responding party wholly failed to respond to requests for admission. Nonetheless, the present motion improperly proceeds as if no responses were ever received. As the premise for the motion is procedurally infirm, the Court declines to deem Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 51 admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. The denial is without prejudice to any relief that may otherwise be available under the Discovery Act based upon an alleged failure to comply with the Court's prior order compelling further responses.

The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of any such request.

CV-24-000417 - CEJA, REGINA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION - Final Fairness Hearing - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds the settlement was reached after informed, arm's-length negotiations following contested litigation, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and warrants final approval. Defendant Stanislaus County Office of Education shall pay a total of $220,000.00 to resolve this litigation, and the Individual Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members are approved to be paid in accordance with the Settlement.

For settlement purposes only, the Court confirms certification of the Settlement Class defined as all current and former non-union classified employees who (1) were hired and began work on or before June 30, 2023; (2) prior to July 1, 2023 were paid according to a Certificated Management Salary Schedule; and (3) on and after July 1, 2023 were moved from a Certificated to a Classified Management Salary Schedule. The Court finds ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority are satisfied and confirms appointment of Susan Lyneis and Regina Ceja as Class Representatives and class counsel as previously appointed in the Court's preliminary approval order.

The Court finds the notice program, consisting of bilingual mailed notice to each Settlement Class Member following address verification procedures, was the best notice practicable, satisfied due process and California Rules of Court, rule 3.769, and provided adequate protection to class members. Notice was successfully delivered to all 40 Settlement Class Members. No class member objected to the Settlement, requested exclusion from the Settlement, or disputed his or her workweek calculation.

The non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount is $220,000.00, from which are approved: attorneys' fees of $73,333.33; litigation costs of $1,357.95; Class Representative Enhancement Payments of $5,000.00 each to Susan Lyneis and Regina Ceja ($10,000.00 total); and Settlement Administration Expenses to Apex Class Action, LLC of $3,990.00. After approved deductions, the estimated Net Settlement Amount of approximately $130,676.67 shall be distributed to 40 Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis according to qualifying workweeks during the Class Period. The average estimated settlement payment is approximately $3,266.92, with payments ranging from approximately $673.74 to $4,130.33.

Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of $73,333.33 and litigation costs of $1,357.95, consistent with the Settlement and supported by counsel's lodestar showing work in excess of 225 hours and a reported lodestar of $239,790.75, resulting in a substantial negative multiplier. The Court awards Enhancement Payments of $5,000.00 each to Susan Lyneis and Regina Ceja for their service to the Class. The Court approves Apex Class Action, LLC's fees and expenses of $3,990.00.

The Court enters final judgment consistent with the Settlement Agreement and prior preliminary approval orders. Without affecting finality, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over implementation, interpretation, administration, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement and this Order.

The Court notes that the proposed order submitted for signature inadvertently contains references to a PAGA claim and PAGA-related relief. No PAGA claim is alleged in the operative complaint, no PAGA penalties are being recovered, and the Settlement contains no PAGA release. The Court has therefore stricken the PAGA-related language from the proposed order. As modified, the proposed order accurately reflects the terms of the Settlement and may be signed.

In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384, the Court SETS a compliance hearing for May 7, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, to confirm completion of settlement administration. The Settlement Administrator shall submit a compliance report no later than five court days before the hearing identifying the amount paid to Settlement Class Members, the number and value of negotiated checks, any residual funds remaining after expiration of the 180-day check-cashing period, and any cy pres distribution.

Under the Settlement, any residual funds remaining after the check-cashing period shall be distributed to Court Appointed Special Advocates of Stanislaus County (CASA). If settlement administration is complete as certified by the administrator, no appearance will be necessary. Additionally, the Court orders that Notice of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days.