Plaintiff's Motion to Discharge & Dismiss Stakeholder Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 386(B); 386.5
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?”
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