WOODLAND, LOGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR MAY 7, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.

Estate of Jacob Newell, through estate administrator, Frances Guinasso’s causes of action. As such, defendant does not meet its burden to establish the action has not merit to warrant summary judgment.

Nor can the court treat the motion for summary judgment as a motion for summary adjudication. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1545–46.)

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

4. S-CV-0048888 WOODLAND, LOGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP

Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Petitions and Orders for Compromise of Minors’ Claims and Creation of a Trust, and all Related Later Filed Documents

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal is granted.

Court records are presumed to be open to the public unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) This presumption, however, is not absolute. (See McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 31.) The court may order a record be filed under seal upon express findings of fact that establish: (1) an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access, (2) an overriding interest supporting sealing the record, (3) a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, (4) the sealing of the record is narrowly tailored, and (5) there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) This rule applies to sealed records or records proposed to be sealed by court order. (Id. at subd. (a)(1).)

The court finds, based on the moving papers and supporting documents, that an overriding interest exists in the parties’ settlement amounts and related financial and personally identifying information that overcomes the right of public access to the records to be sealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) The court finds that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed. (Ibid.) The court further finds the proposed sealing of information is narrowly tailored, and that no less restrictive means to achieve the identified overriding interest exists. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs Logan Woodland, Madison Woodland, and Peyton Woodland’s respective petitions for approval of compromise of claim for minor are sealed. The clerks shall

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR MAY 7, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.

file plaintiffs’ redacted petitions for approval of compromise of claim for minor on or before May 14, 2026.

The court further notes that any person may make a motion to unseal the document in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551, subdivision (h).

Amended Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor (Logan Woodland)

The petition for approval of minor’s compromise claim is granted. After careful consideration of the petition and attachments, the court finds the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. (Prob. Code, § 3500; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337-38.)

Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor (Peyton Woodland)

The petition for approval of minor’s compromise claim is granted. After careful consideration of the petition and attachments, the court finds the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. (Prob. Code, § 3500; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337-38.)

Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor (Madison Woodland)

The petition for approval of minor’s compromise claim is granted. After careful consideration of the petition and attachments, the court finds the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. (Prob. Code, § 3500; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337-38.)

5. S-CV-0050766 WILLIAMS, VICTORIA v. PHILLIPS, SEAN

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Preliminary Matters

The court is concerned about an undue consumption of very precious and limited resources especially in situations where a meaningful meet and confer process is required but not performed or completed. If oral argument is requested, personal appearance is required. Remote appearance is not authorized. The parties shall be prepared to discuss why the meet and confer process was not performed; not discussed in any submitted declaration; and why the court should not impose

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings