Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
The Court notes that the total amount of fees described in the moving papers differs from the total reflected in the billing documentation attached to counsel's declaration in support of the motion. However, as it appears the correct amount is reflected in the proposed order, the Court will sign the order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-005435 - In re 517 FORT HENRY DRIVE MODESTO CA 95354 - a) Petitioner's Petition Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee's Sale - DENIED. b) Claimant's Motion for Claim of Surplus Funds - DENIED.
a-b) After review of the supplemental submissions of the parties relative to the Court's proposed judicial notice of the existence of a prior probate proceeding and related documents which may affect the distribution of the subject funds, the Court determines to take judicial notice of the probate proceeding (PR23-919), the existence of the will, and the creditor's claim filed therein. (Evid. Code Sec. 455; Estate of Russell (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 758, 765-766; Pike v. Archibald (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 114, 117.)
As a result, the Court finds that the instant matters are not appropriate for adjudication at this time, as it appears the parties need to pursue the matter in a probate proceeding in order to ensure proper handling of the funds in accordance with the law and the applicable legal instrument (will). The subject funds will remain on deposit with the court until such time as the probate division adjudicates the matter.
CV-25-009663 - CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY vs OMARI, AHMAD RESHAD - Plaintiff's Motion to Discharge & Dismiss Stakeholder Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 386(B); 386.5 - DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate service of the moving papers on Defendant Singh. In addition, it appears Plaintiff failed to submit the supporting memorandum for the Court's consideration. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1112(a).)
CV-25-011109 - DOE 1, JANE vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Defendant Robert J. Altman M.D.'s Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. The Court finds that the pleading is deficient as against Dr. Altman due to misjoinder of multiple plaintiffs who fail to allege facts describing the same transaction, occurrence, or a related series of acts within the parameters established by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 378. (
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?”
Moreover, based on the nature of the facts alleged and in light of the controlling case authority, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to amend the allegations to satisfy the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 378 in this instance. Therefore, leave to amend is denied, and Plaintiffs are required to pursue their claims against Dr. Altman separately.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-002332 - CASTRO, MICHAEL ANDREW vs MUSCARELLA, STEVEN - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Provisional Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only - GRANTED. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the proposed class and representative action settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness for purposes of preliminary approval.
Specifically, the Court finds: The proposed settlement is the result of arm's’length negotiations conducted with the assistance of an experienced mediator, following sufficient investigation and informal discovery to permit counsel to reasonably evaluate the strengths and risks of the claims. The proposed Settlement Class is appropriately defined for settlement purposes only, and provisional certification is warranted. Plaintiff is an adequate Class Representative, and proposed Class Counsel are experienced and adequate to represent the interests of the Settlement Class.
The Gross Settlement Amount of $365,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs, settlement administration expenses, service award, and PAGA penalties, is reasonable in light of the alleged claims, the risks of continued litigation, and the anticipated recovery to class members. The proposed allocation of PAGA penalties complies with statutory requirements, and Plaintiff has provided notice of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The proposed notice plan, notice forms, and claims administration procedures appear to satisfy due process and the requirements of the California Rules of Court.
The proposed order accurately reflects the material terms of the settlement and the procedures for notice, objections, opt’outs, and final approval.
Accordingly, the Court: Preliminarily approves the settlement for purposes of notice and final approval. Provisionally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. Appoints Plaintiff as Class Representative and Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel. Approves the proposed Class Notice and notice dissemination plan. Appoints Apex Class Action Administration as Settlement Administrator. Sets deadlines and procedures for notice, objections, exclusions, and challenges as set forth in the proposed order.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for: October 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. Plaintiff shall file the motion for final approval, along with all supporting papers, including the administrator's declaration, by the deadline specified in the order granting preliminary approval.
CV-25-009148 - PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, for further meet and confer. This is a Song?Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("lemon law") action. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for production, contending the responses are incomplete and consist largely of objections. Defendant opposes the motion and represents that it has engaged in meet’and’confer efforts and that additional discussions may further narrow or resolve the remaining disputes.
Based on the papers submitted, it appears there is a reasonable possibility that additional good’faith meet’and’confer efforts may resolve or significantly narrow further discovery issues, particularly given the nature of lemon law discovery, which frequently involves standardized categories of documents (e.g., repair records, warranty information, and communications) that may be amenable to clarification or supplementation without court intervention. Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses is continued to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The parties are ordered to meet and confer further in good faith during the continuance.
No later than June 22, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication. The Court reminds counsel that discovery is intended to be self’executing and that meaningful meet’and’confer efforts require serious attempts at informal resolution, not mere exchange of adversarial correspondence. No ruling is made at this time on the merits of the motion or any request for sanctions.
CV-26-002704 - CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration - Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is GRANTED. Defendants have met their burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Although Plaintiff denies signing the arbitration agreement, Defendants submitted competent evidence explaining the electronic onboarding process, including the use of a secure portal requiring a unique username and password, and showing Plaintiff electronically executed multiple onboarding documents on the same date. This evidence is sufficient to authenticate Plaintiff's electronic signature and distinguish this case from those in which arbitration was denied for lack of attribution. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.)