DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0050336·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing in 3 daysCONTINUED

Bal, Gurman v. Amerio, Ashley R

Motion to set aside void judgment

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
32
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 27, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGurman Bal
DefendantAshley R. Amerio

Ruling

in support thereof. The court determines a sufficient showing has been made that the settlement, the attorneys’ fees of $99,483.33, the litigation costs of $23,284.86, the settlement administration costs of $10,950, and the service award of $12,800 are fair, adequate, reasonable, genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the purpose of PAGA.

The court grants final approval of the class action and approves the attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs, and the service award.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed final judgment to the court for its review. The court retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (h).)

The court schedules this matter for a final accounting hearing on January 12, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32. Plaintiff shall file and serve a final accounting status report by no later than December 28, 2026.

6. S-CV-0050336 Bal, Gurman v. Amerio, Ashley R

The motion to set aside void judgment and/or voidable judgment and/or equitable relief pursuant to C.C.P. §473(d) is continued to October 27, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32.

7. S-CV-0050872 Ernst, Cody v. Denham, Michele

Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ discovery demands is denied as it is supported by insufficient justification. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is likely denied.

Motion to Compel

Defendants Michelle Denham and Lisa Berry move for an order compelling plaintiff to provide responses to defendants’ (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories, and (3) requests for production of documents. No opposition has been filed.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

The unopposed motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.) Within 30 days of service of notice of entry of this order, plaintiff Cody Ernst shall provide verified responses without objections to defendants’ (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories, and (3) requests for production of documents.

4

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