DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24614539·sf·Civil·PAGA Action
Hearing in about 3 hoursDENIED without prejudice.

RON ROUSSELL VS. BOHEMIAN CLUB, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Individual Claims With Prejudice And Consolidated Class And Paga Claims Without Prejudice

Hearing date
Sep 10, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffRON ROUSSELL
DefendantBOHEMIAN CLUB

Ruling

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY Calendar for Thursday, Sep-10-2026. LINE 7. PLAINTIFF RON ROUSSELL's, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CLASS MEMBERS, Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Individual Claims With Prejudice And Consolidated Class And Paga Claims Without Prejudice.

Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his individual claims with prejudice and consolidated class and PAGA claims without prejudice is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff brought this case as a PAGA action alleging violations of Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. He has reached a settlement of individual claims with the defendants and contends that no part of that consideration was paid for settlement of class or PAGA claims.

Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (s)(2), provides that "The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court." This case is a civil action filed pursuant to PAGA and therefore any settlement of it must be approved by the court and submitted to LWDA. The latter has not occurred.

Moreover, plaintiff provides insufficient information for the court to "review and approve any settlement." Plaintiff's assurance that no consideration was paid for representative claims is insufficient; rather, plaintiff must provide information from which the court can make its own assessment that plaintiff's settlement does not include any value for representative claims.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |

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