Unopposed Motion To Dismiss
Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, June 1, 2026, line 9, Plaintiff Nicolette Ocampo's unopposed Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff seeks a court order under California Rules of Court rule 3.770. Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must determine that the terms of the settlement are "fair, adequate, and reasonable." (See Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) In making this determination, there is a "presumption of fairness . . . where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small." (Id. at 1802.)
To grant final approval, the trial court must "independently [satisfy] itself that the consideration . . . received for the release of the class members' claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation." (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) "Requests for dismissal must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal and must describe the consideration in detail." (California Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a).)
Plaintiff here seeks to dismiss her class claims without prejudice. The Tauler Declaration does not clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal of the class claims. Nor does it describe the consideration being given in detail. Such a description requires an analysis demonstrating Plaintiff received no consideration for dismissal of the class claims, which generally will require an analysis of the individual claims, their value, the risks, the settlement amount, the relation between these figures, as well as the attorney's fees recovery, if any, and a showing whether or not it demonstrates consideration for abandoning the class claims.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who submits a subsequent motion seeking substantially identical relief must provide a copy of this order with their moving papers and address the issues raised in the order. In advance of the hearing time, Plaintiff is ordered to submit by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order quoting the above verbatim.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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 contestdept302tr@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.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion 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. =(302/JMQ) | |