DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-CIV-04638·sanmateo·Civil·Proposition 65
Hearing in about 2 hoursCONTINUED

RAMY KAUFLER EDEN VS. GRAND MARTCO, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
Dept. 20
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 11, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRAMY KAUFLER EDEN
DefendantGRAND MARTCO, INC.

Attorneys

JARRETT CHAROfor Plaintiff
DONALD J. DOWLINGfor Defendant

Ruling

September 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 4 24-CIV-04638 RAMY KAUFLER EDEN VS. GRAND MARTCO, INC.,

RAMY KAUFLER EDEN JARRETT CHARO GRAND MARTCO, INC., DONALD J. DOWLING

Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion for Settlement Approval by Plaintiff Ramy Kaufler Eden (“Plaintiff”) is continued for one week to September 11, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for Plaintiff to cure the defects identified below. Due to the continuance, no appearances are needed on September 4, 2026.

The proof of service that is attached to the Notice of Motion and Motion for Settlement Approval, filed on February 23, 2026, is unsigned. The Motion is required to be served not only on Defendant, but also the Attorney General. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 11, § 3008 [in a private Proposition 65 action, motion and supporting papers must be served on the California Attorney General at least forty-five days prior to the hearing on the motion]; Health and Safety Code, § 25249.7, subd. (f)(5) [plaintiff shall serve motion and all supporting papers on the Attorney General, who may appear and participate in a proceeding without intervening in the case].) Therefore, Plaintiff has not established proper service of this Motion. This defect can be cured by submitting a signed Proof of Service.

The Notice of Hearing also fails to provide the correct date and location of the hearing. At the time of filing, the hearing date on the Notice of Motion was changed from July 10, 2026 to September 4, 2026. The court’s record does not reflect the filing or service of an amended notice. Further, the Notice of Hearing incorrectly provided the address for the Southern Branch courthouse in Redwood City. At the time Plaintiff filed this Motion, Department 20 was located at the Central Branch. On April 29, 2026, the court served counsel of record with a Notice of Hearing Location Change for the September 4, 2026 hearing stating that Department 20 is now located at the Northern Branch.

The address for the Northern Branch is 1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Even if the court were to find that Defendant has notice of the date and location of the hearing as a result of service of the Notice of Hearing Location Change, Plaintiff has not shown the California Attorney General has notice of the correct date and location of the hearing. This defect can be cured by filing and serving an Amended Notice of Hearing on Continued Motion for Settlement Approval, with a signed Proof of Service for service on Defendant and on the Attorney General.

The Court waives an Order after Hearing, and instead the Minute Order will reflect this ruling.

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