Garcia v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant LCS Community Employment LLC (“Defendant”) to sever the claims of Plaintiffs Claudia Garcia and Veronica Elizabeth Cortes Ruiz (“Plaintiffs”) or, in the alternative, to order separate trials. This matter was originally heard on March 25, 2026, and was continued for proof of service showing service of the motion after it was filed or of notice of the hearing.

Proof of service was filed on March 27, 2026, along with Defendant’s proof of service of Notice of Entry of Court’s Minute Order. On August 27, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation RE Severance and Consolidation of Plaintiff Garcia’s Claims and [Proposed] Order wherein the parties stipulate to the severance of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the motion is taken off calendar as MOOT.

6. 25CV05371, Ashby v. California Department of Transportation, a public entity

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b and Government Code section 955.2, defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), moves for an order transferring this action to the County of Sacramento.

The complaint filed by Plaintiffs Quinton Wesley Ashby, an individual, and Laura Ashby, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Quinton Wesley Ashby (“Plaintiffs”), arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 11, 2024. Plaintiffs were driving near SR-160 and Sherman Island East Levee Road in an unincorporated area of Sacramento County on a roadway allegedly negligently owned, managed, and/or operated by Caltrans, when a vehicle owned by defendant Emma Leticia Recinos, and driven by defendant John Patrick Malley, collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing them substantial injuries.

Government Code section 955.2 provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where the State is named as a defendant in any action or proceeding for death or injury to person or personal property and the injury or the injury causing death occurred within this State, the proper court for the trial of the action is a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the injury occurred or where the injury causing death occurred. The court may, on motion, change the place of the trial in the same manner and under the same circumstances as the place of trial may be changed where an action is between private parties.”

As the State of California is a defendant in this action and the injury is alleged to have occurred in Sacramento County, the proper venue for this action is in Sacramento County. The motion is GRANTED. This action shall be transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The court will sign the proposed order.

7. SCV-269300, Garcia v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC

On August 26, 2026, this court granted the ex parte application of Defendant RAC Acceptance East, LLC (“Defendant”) to advance hearing dates on the applications of Stephanie Quincy and Lindsay Fiore to be admitted pro hac vice. The court set the hearing on the pro hac vice applications on this calendar.

I. Proof of Service

“A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar at its San Francisco office. The 8 notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(1) [Italics added.])

II. Stephanie Qunicy

Ms. Quincy states in her declaration that the application and supporting documents will be submitted to the State Bar of California on the same date the application is filed. However, as of the time the court reviewed Ms. Quincy’s application, proof of service of the application on the State Bar’s San Francisco office had not been filed.

III. Lindsay Fiore

Similarly, Ms. Fiore also states in her declaration that the application and supporting documents will be submitted to the State Bar of California on the same date the application is filed. However, as of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service of the application on the State Bar’s San Francisco office had not been filed.

IV.

Conclusion

Except for the failure to file proof of service on the State Bar, the applications comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 and this court finds no reason not to grant the applications. Therefore, the hearings on the applications are CONTINUED to September 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16, to allow applicants Stephany Quincy and Lindsay Fiore to file proof of service of the applications on the State Bar of California at the San Francisco office.

8. SCV-273893, Cruz Lopez v. JKT Associates, Inc., a California Corporation

Plaintiff Jose Luis Cruz Lopez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant JKT Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”).

Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1) Granting preliminary approval of the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement; (2) Certifying a Class, for settlement purposes only; (3) Approving the Class Notice and plan for its distribution; (4) Appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative, for settlement purposes only; (5) Appointing Moon Law Group, PC as Class Counsel, for settlement purposes only; (6) Appointing ILYM Group, Inc. (“Administrator”) as the Administrator; and (7) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing no earlier than 120 days from the date of preliminary approval.

I. Legal Standards

To prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Id., at p. 1801.) The purpose of the requirement is “the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Ibid.)

“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. [Citation.] It should consider relevant factors, such as the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. [Citation.]

The list of factors is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case. Due regard should be given to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties. The inquiry “must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a 9