NIA GILBERT VS. BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618496 - December 17, 2025 Hearing date: December 17, 2025 Case number: CGC24618496 Case title: NIA GILBERT VS. BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618496 | Case Title: | | NIA GILBERT VS. BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-17 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended Notice And Amended Motion For Dismissal Of Representative Action Without Prejudice | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, December 17, 2025, Line 4, PLAINTIFF NIA GILBERT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S Amended Notice And Amended Motion For Dismissal Of Representative Action Without Prejudice.

Plaintiff's Amended Motion For Dismissal Of Representative Action Without Prejudice is before the court. HEARING REQUIRED. The court is not inclined to grant the amended motion. The initial motion was brought under Labor Code section 2699 and California Rule of Court, rule 3.770. By the amended motion, Plaintiff appears to disavow reliance on section 2699 and rule 3.770.

Typically, a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss claims without a court order. If a party requests a court order, the presumption is the court has a duty-typically a duty to apply a legal standard to the request and determine whether the legal standard has been met. Given Plaintiff's renunciation of section 2699 and rule 3.770, the court is at a loss regarding the basis for the request and the analysis Plaintiff is asking it to undertake.

The court has previously stated that it will not exercise its discretion to dismiss representative PAGA claims under section 2699 absent notice to LWDA. Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated it given proper notice. Plaintiff's explanation for filing two substantially similar actions in two different courts in short order is not satisfactory. Plaintiff's primary right explanation is undeveloped and unconvincing, especially in light of her interest in now effectively consolidating the actions. The causes of action may involve different law and different relief, but it does not follow that they do not arise from the same primary right. The court remains concerned about claim splitting and forum shopping, and it isn't inclined to issue an order that invites claim splitting and forum shopping in this action or other actions.

Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) |