GEORGE NIKITAS VS. GARUDA LABS, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC25621406 - December 17, 2025 Hearing date: December 17, 2025 Case number: CGC25621406 Case title: GEORGE NIKITAS VS. GARUDA LABS, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25621406 | Case Title: | | GEORGE NIKITAS VS. GARUDA LABS, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-17 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order For Entry Of Joint Stipulation To Dismiss; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. In Support; | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, December 17, 2025, Line 7, PLAINTIFF GEORGE NIKITAS AN INDIVIDUAL'S Motion For An Order For Entry Of Joint Stipulation To Dismiss.

Plaintiff George Nikitas's Notice of Motion For An Order For Entry Of Joint Stipulation To Dismiss is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to identify a statutory or common law basis for his motion, which, alone is grounds for denial. Plaintiff must identify the legal basis for his request, the applicable legal standard for adjudication and an analysis thereon.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 governs certain procedural requirements for noticed motions. It is not a substantive basis for a request for a court order. Local Rule 8.2, similarly, is off point. If the motion is made under Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(1), the court will not authorize dismissal absent more information, in light of the fact that dismissal under this statute generally does not require a court order. It is not enough that the parties may desire court approval.

If the motion is Labor Code section 2699(s), the court needs much more information and analysis. "The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part." (Labor Code section 2699(s)(2).) Here, Plaintiff, who accepted the role of public prosecutor for purposes of the representative claim(s), must (at the very least) submit the settlement agreement for the individual claim(s), explain why the settlement should not be construed as consideration for dismissing the representative claims, and explain how dismissal of the representative claims is in the public interest.

Review of the settlement agreement is largely for the benefit of the aggrieved employees, who are members of the public entitled to access to court records. Section 2699(s)(2) establishes another precondition to judicial approval of a PAGA settlement: "The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court." This request for dismissal of the representative claim(s) is based on settlement of Plaintiff's individual claim. Plaintiff here has not demonstrated that he submitted his papers to the LWDA. It is unlikely the court will approve dismissal of the representative claims on these grounds on a subsequent motion absent notice, and proof thereof, to the LWDA. Notice should be provided consistent with Code of Civil Procedure 1005(b).

It is unlikely, as well, that the court will seal the adjudicative facts, such as the provisions of the settlement agreement, necessary to its determination, particularly given the public's and aggrieved parties' interests.

As a side note, Plaintiff states aggrieved employees will suffer no prejudice from dismissal because his representative claims are "covered by prior lawsuits," (Mot. at p. 5.) Plaintiff identifies nominally five prior lawsuits. The court is without any information regarding the claims in those lawsuits or any analysis how those claims "cover" his claims. Plaintiff must demonstrate lack of prejudice, not merely suggest it.

Plaintiff is ordered to submit by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order consistent with this tentative forthwith. The court's order on this motion must be references and included with any subsequent motion seeking substantially similar relief. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |