Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Piazza’s Fine Foods, Inc. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 21CV391013 Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Piazza's Fine Foods, Inc. et al. Line 2 21CV391013 Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Piazza's Fine Foods, Inc. et al. Line 3 23CV424908 Heriberto Mendoza et al. Defendant’s motion to abate proceedings. Notice is proper, and v. Martin Velasquez the motion is opposed by plaintiffs. The motion is based on the court’s inherent authority to stay proceedings in the interest of justice. (Citing Freiberg v.

City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Defense counsel argues the case must be stayed because defendant is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence that limits his participation in the action. That showing, without more, is inadequate to support a stay of proceedings. The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 24CV441236 Hong Wang v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Changzhuang Yu et al.

Calendar Lines 1 and 2 Case Name: Elizabeth Gonzalez v. Piazza’s Fine Foods, Inc. et al. Case No.: 21CV391013

Motions by defendants Piazza’s Fine Foods, Inc., and Rogelio Pena to seal documents and to enforce a settlement agreement. Notice is proper. Plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez does not oppose the motions to seal, but opposes defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The parties settled this employment dispute in 2025. The parties signed a confidential settlement agreement. Plaintiff signed it in November 2025. Defendants signed it in January 2026. Under that agreement, plaintiff “agree[d] not to disclose any information regarding the financial terms of this Agreement.” (Settlement agreement, section 6.1.) Plaintiff further agreed to a liquidated damages clause under which plaintiff would be required to pay the corporate defendant $5,000 for any breach of the confidentiality clause. (Settlement agreement, section 6.3.) That clause further authorized the corporate defendant to recover attorney fees related to “any claim based upon a breach” of the confidentiality clause.

Plaintiff attached a copy of a partially executed settlement agreement to a declaration by counsel filed with the court in January 2026, related to a hearing on dismissal after settlement. The version of the settlement agreement filed by plaintiff included signatures by plaintiff and the corporate defendant.

Motions to Seal

Defendants move to seal both the partially executed settlement agreement and the fully executed settlement agreement they lodged with their motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

A court has the authority to order that a record be filed under seal if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less-restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550.) An agreement by parties that a document is confidential is inadequate to support sealing absent a “specific showing of serious injury.” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1282.)

Defendants do not make an adequate showing of prejudice to support sealing. They note that the parties agreed to keep the settlement agreement confidential and that making it public would “circumvent public policy.” They also contend there is “no reason that these terms need to be made public.” Those arguments do not demonstrate prejudice, though they are relevant to the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The motions to seal are denied.

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

The motion to enforce the settlement agreement seeks liquidated damages and attorney fees for plaintiff’s breach of the settlement agreement’s confidentiality provision.

Plaintiff breached the settlement agreement’s confidentiality provision by attaching the partially executed settlement agreement to the declaration filed in the case in January 2026. The court did not need the full settlement agreement for what was essentially a status conference regarding the case. Plaintiff contends there “was still no binding agreement” when counsel filed the document because not all parties had signed it. But plaintiff had already signed the agreement, indicating an intent to be bound by its terms.

Plaintiff also argues the filing did not breach the settlement agreement because section 6.1 allows plaintiff to disclose information about the agreement to the court as a “federal, state or local government agency.” (Settlement agreement, section 6.1.) The flaw in plaintiff’s argument is that the disclosure was made in a public filing accessible by anyone, meaning it was not made solely to a government agency.

Under the settlement agreement, plaintiff and her counsel of record must pay the corporate defendant $5,000 in liquidated damages. The corporate defendant is also entitled to reasonable attorney fees related to the breach. Section 6.3 does not authorize attorney fees for defendant Pena. The court finds the $300 attorney hourly rate reasonable. The court finds the corporate defendants’ request for 31.5 hours excessive. The attorney declaration asserts that amount of time was spent on legal research, drafting the motion and accompanying declarations, and communicating with opposing counsel. It provides no breakdown of time spent on each of those activities. The court finds 20 hours to be a reasonable amount of time to spend on enforcing the settlement agreement. Plaintiff and her counsel of record must therefore pay the corporate defendant $6,000 in attorney fees (20 hours at $300/hour).

Conclusion

The motions to seal are DENIED.

The motion to enforce the settlement agreement it GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and her counsel of record must pay defendant Piazza’s Fine Foods, Inc.: (1) $5,000 as liquidated damages; and (2) $6,000 in attorney fees. Those payments are due no later than September 28, 2026.

The court will hold a further hearing on dismissal after settlement on November 5, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 10.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

6