DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV000098·napa·Civil·Class Action
Hearing todayGRANTED

Melissa Castellucci v. Peju Family Operating Partnership, LP

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
Dept. B
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Next hearing
Jan 5, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMelissa Castellucci
DefendantPeju Family Operating Partnership, LP

Ruling

forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Plaintiff Caroline Geitner moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure 2030.290, subdivision (a), for relief from waiver of objections to Defendant ST. Joseph Health Northern California, LLC.’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

The Court finds, from the evidence presented, that Ms. Geitner has served a response that is in substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Discovery Act, and that her failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) This Order is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to file a motion to compel discovery should it determine such a motion is necessary.

The Motion is, therefore, GRANTED.

Melissa Castellucci v. Peju Family Operating Partnership, LP 25CV000098

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGE SETTLEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order. The matter is set for a Final Approval Hearing on January 5, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The December 15, 2026 OSC is VACATED.

14

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