DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV-23-005650·stanislaus·Civil·Wage & Hour Class Action
Hearing todayDENIED as moot. Monetary sanctions are ordered jointly and severally against Defendant and counsel in the amount of $2,560.

LOPEZ, RAFAEL, J vs NGB CONSTRUCTION INC

Plaintiff's Motion to compel Defendant's Compliance with the Belaire-West Notice Process and Production of Class Contact Information; Request for Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,560$3,429.80$500$60

Parties

PlaintiffRafael J. Lopez
DefendantNGB Construction Inc

Ruling

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 25, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-005650 - LOPEZ, RAFAEL, J vs NGB CONSTRUCTION INC - Plaintiff's Motion to compel Defendant's Compliance with the Belaire-West Notice Process and Production of Class Contact Information; Request for Sanctions - DENIED as moot. Monetary sanctions are ordered jointly and severally against Defendant and counsel in the amount of $2,560.

Both parties agree that the motion to compel is moot because Defendant produced the required contact information for all putative class members one day after Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff argues that sanctions should be awarded because Defendant produced the information only after the motion to compel was filed. "The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030.)

Here, Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding approval of the Belaire-West Notice at least three times between March 27, 2026, and June 9, 2026. On June 12, 2026, Defendant confirmed it had no revisions to the Belaire-West Notice. Plaintiff subsequently requested the class member information on June 13, 2026, June 16, 2026, and June 25, 2026. In addition, the settlement administrator sent at least three emails asking when the class member information would be provided. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's emails or the settlement administrator's emails. On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed in the instant motion. One day later, Defendant produced the information.

Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees for 5.8 hours billed at a rate of $581 per hour in connection with the instant motion together with the filing fee of $60.00, for a total amount of $3,429.80. Despite multiple follow-ups from Plaintiff, Defendant did not produce the class member information until Plaintiff filed its motion to compel. Defendant could have taken action earlier to assemble the information. The Court finds sanctions are warranted in this case and sets them at 5 hours at $500 plus $60 in filing fees. The Court is well aware that Plaintiff lacks clean hands on timeliness issues in this case. Nonetheless, the delays here, especially given the lack of contact and lack of information on the time required to assemble the information, are not excusable.

Monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,560.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are issued. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Melmed Law Group, P.C., within 20 days. Moving party to submit a proposed order within 5 court days that comports with this ruling.

CV-25-012288 - VEGA, GLORIA vs US RENAL CARE INC - a) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED with leave to amend; b) Defendant U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - GRANTED with leave to amend.

a) Preliminarily, the demurrer fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that the parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference." Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 was the delivery of a written communication sent to Plaintiff via email on May 19, 2026. Instead of responding with a time to meet and confer, Plaintiff responded via email merely requesting that the hearing be set after July 3, 2026. (Declaration of Lyly K. Tran, P.P. 2-3.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share