Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing

the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (11) Records relating to communications between the manufacturer or dealership and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle, including those related to repair orders or claims involving the motor vehicle. (12) Warranty policies and procedure manuals. (13) Service manuals reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (14) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, all call recordings of pre-suit communications with the consumer available at the time of service of the complaint. (15) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, the manufacturer's written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to "Lemon Law" claims. (16) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, any nonprivileged, prelitigation evaluation. (17) Any warranty extensions or modifications issued by the manufacturer on the motor vehicle."

Here, Plaintiff represents that none of the requisite disclosures have been timely made. Ford admits to the untimely disclosure approximately 18 days after the deadline.

As to sanctions, subsection (j) states: "(j) Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (1) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b)..."

As to good cause for the failure to provide the required disclosures within 60 days of the demurrer, the Court finds sufficient good cause based on the declaration of counsel as to the unintentional failure to make the initial disclosures. Therefore, the Court denies the motion as to the requests for sanctions and finds the request to compel the disclosures moot by the April 28, 2026 production.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing Case No.: VCU314801 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and preliminarily approve the settlement, as modified herein; to set the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

Background

Facts At the prior hearing on April 30, 2026, the Court continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to calculating the lodestar, information regarding the presently incurred costs of counsel and the amount of the administrative costs. On May 15, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration addressing these issues. At the prior hearing on May 21, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel requested oral argument and this matter was continued to this hearing date.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs Attorneys' fees and costs no greater than of 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $650,000 or $216,666.67 are sought in this matter. Counsel has utilized the percentage of common fund methodology as well as provided adequate lodestar information to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request. Here, counsel indicate the firm has spent 121.7 hours at rates ranging from $1,227 to $277, resulting in a base lodestar of $106,125.90. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.2.) The Court notes that these rates are already higher than what is typically "... prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

The Court, therefore, adjusts the hourly rates as follows: Name | Stated Hourly Rate | Approved Hourly Rate | Hours | Total | Gary M. Klinger | $1,019 | $800 | 16.8 | $13,440 | David K. Lietz | $1,227 | $900 | 2.6 | $2,340 | John J. Nelson | $902 | $700 | 61.2 | $42,840 | Dean Meyer | $581 | $400 | 4.2 | $1,680 | Mariya Weekes | $1,019 | $800 | 4 | $3,200 | CJ Cuneo | $1,019 | $800 | 20.2 | $16,160 | Michelle Benvenuto | $277 | $150 | 4 | $600 | Sandra Passanisi | $277 | $150 | 3.9 | $585 | Kendal McLaughlin | $277 | $150 | 2.9 | $435 | Amanda Mkmanga | $277 | $150 | .1 | $15 | Ashley Tyrrell | $277 | $150 | 1.1 | $165 | Heather Sheflin | $277 | $150 | .7 | $105 | Adjusted Base Lodestar: | $81,565 |

To award $216,666.67 in attorneys' fees, therefore, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 2.65 The Court typically permits a maximum lodestar multiple of 1.5 in these cases. The Court has reviewed the declarations of counsel in support of what is now an additional 1.15 multiplier, but, in its discretion, rules that the additional.5 awarded adequately takes into account the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented. (See In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1052 quoting Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833)

Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, the Court has an independent responsibility to review the attorney fee provision of the settlement agreement and award an amount that it determines to be reasonable. (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.) Therefore, the Court will preliminarily approve $122,347.50, equal to 1.5 times the current lodestar. Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of $2,028.38 (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.2.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $5,000.00.

Claims Administrator The Court preliminary approves EisnerAmper as the claims administrator for this class action. The supplemental declaration of Nelson indicates estimated administrative costs of $49,927.23. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.3.)

Claim Form As counsel notes in the supplemental declaration, a claim form is required to obtain a portion of the settlement fund. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.4.)

Summary Therefore, Plaintiff's deductions from the gross settlement of $650,000 are preliminarily approved as follows: Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (1.5 Lodestar): | $122,347.50 | Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to): | $5,000.00 | Preliminarily Approved Payment to Plaintiff: | $1,500.00 | Preliminarily Approved Administrator Costs | $ 49,927.23 | Preliminarily Approved Settlement Amount | $471,225.27 |

Therefore, the Court preliminarily approves the settlement as indicated herein. The Court sets the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Visalia-County Civic Center Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding - Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Wednesday, June 3, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status