Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, are:

Re:              LaRumbe-Torres, Josiah vs. Kaweah Health Medical Center et al

Case No.:     VCU313564

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Joint Expert Inspection as to Defendant Dobbs’ Phone

Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing.

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:              Felix, Jose vs. D.R. Klassen Packing, Inc.

Case No.:     VCU318452

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To continue the motion to August 25, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 2; to order a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar, presently incurred costs and proof of submission to the LWDA.

1. Sufficiency of Amount of Settlement (Net Estimated: $40,166.67)

The gross settlement amount is $100,000. Plaintiff estimates approximately 281 proposed Class Members, providing an estimated average payout of $142.94 per member.

The Class Members consist of:

Non-exempt current or former employees who work or worked for Defendants, D.R. Klassen Packing, Inc. and D.R. Klassen Farms, Inc. (collectively, “Defendant”) from February 14, 2021 to December 31, 2025

Plaintiff primarily alleged the following violations:

(1) Unpaid Missed Rest Breaks (Labor Code § 226.7, IWC Wage Order Nos. 13-2001 and 14-2001, Section 12); (2) Unpaid Missed/Interrupted Meal Breaks (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and 1198; IWC Wage Order Nos. 13-2001 and 14-2001, Section 11); (3) Failure to Pay for All Overtime Wages Worked (Labor Code §§ 510, 860, 1194, 1198, and IWC Wage Orders No. 14-2001, Section 3); (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Pay for All Wages Earned and Pay for Vacation Time (Labor Code §§ 204, 227.3, 1194, and 1197); (5) Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses (Labor Code § 2802); (6) Failure to Maintain Accurate Personnel and Payroll Records, Improper Wage Statements (Labor Code §§ 226(a), 1174, 1198.5, 2810.5; IWC Wage Orders Nos. 13-2001 and 14-2001, Section 7); (7) Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation (Labor Code §§ 201-203); (8) Failure to Pay Sick Days (Labor Code §§ 246(a), 246.5); (9) Failure to Pay COVID-19 Supplemental Sick Leave (Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1, 248.2, 248.6); (10) Failure to Provide Suitable Seating (IWC Wage Order Nos. 14-2001, Section 13); (11) Failure to Safe Working Environment (Labor Code §§ 6400, 6401); (12) Reporting Time Pay (IWC Wage Order Nos. 13-2001 and 14-2001, Section 5); (13) Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code §§ 1102-1102.5); (14) Complaints about Dangerous Working Conditions (Labor Code § 6310); (15) Failure to Allow Inspection of Employment Records (Labor Code §§ 1198.5, 2810.5); (16) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.); and Claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”)

Plaintiff provides estimates of the maximum recovery for each of the asserted wage and hour claims and penalties with information showing how the estimates were calculated including the damages models utilized. (Declaration of Mirabel ¶¶70, 71.) Plaintiff has provided a detailed discussion of the value of each claim, applied various discount rates regarding the chance of success as to each claim which corresponds to the final gross settlement amount. The total estimated reasonable recovery after applying various discount rates is $152,000. (Declaration of Mirabel ¶71.)

After agreeing to participate in early mediation, Defendant informally produced time and pay records for Settlement Class members, key class data points, and other documents and information relevant to the claims alleged in advance of mediation. The parties reached the settlement after a full day mediation. 

The Court finds the information provided in support of the gross settlement amount sufficient for the Court to preliminarily approve the gross settlement amount, as the settlement amount appears to be within the recognized range of reasonableness given the claims and defenses asserted in this case.

Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $100,000 are proposed as follows:

Proposed Attorney Fees (33.3%):	$33,333.33
Proposed Attorney Costs (up to):	$10,000.00
Proposed Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff:	$1,500.00
Proposed Settlement Administrator Costs	$10,000.00
Proposed LWDA PAGA Payment	$5,000.00
Proposed Net Settlement Amount	$40,166.67

2.  Class Notice

The settlement agreement provides no claim form will be required of class members to participate in distributions.  Only those wishing to object or opt out must file notice with the settlement administrator.  Objections or opt out notices are to be made within 45 days.

The Court regularly approves notice periods of 60 days or longer. The class notice period, therefore, is not approved.

With respect to the content of the Notice, the Court finds the Class Notice to be reasonable.  It clearly provides to the class member an estimate of the settlement share the employee is to receive and provides adequate instructions for any class member to opt out of the settlement or to submit an objection.

3.  Enhancement Awards to Class Representative

The Court preliminarily approves Plaintiff Felix as Class Representative for settlement purposes. The proposed enhancement award to Plaintiff is $1,500. The enhancement payment is approved.

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 33 1/3% of the gross settlement fund of $100,000 or $33,333.33 and costs not to exceed $10,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Counsel has utilized the percentage of common fund methodology as well as provided adequate lodestar information to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request.

Although the Court recognizes the utilization of the percentage of the common fund methodology to award attorneys’ fees, the Court requires a declaration from counsel that provides an estimate as to what the lodestar would be in this case. The ultimate goal of the Court is to award reasonable attorneys’ fees irrespective of the method of calculation. As such, the court needs to know the estimate of the approximate lodestar supported by declarations for preliminary approval. Counsel should submit information as to the time spent on this action and the hourly rates of all counsel working on the case. Without such information, the Court declines to preliminarily approve the fees.

The Court also cannot preliminarily approve costs up to $10,000.00 without a declaration which states the costs currently expended. 

The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff’s counsel is an experienced class action attorney through the declaration of counsel.

5.  Claims Administrator

The Court preliminary approves IYLM as the claims administrator for this class action based both on prior experience with this settlement administrator in other class actions litigated in this Court and on estimate provide and attached to the declaration of counsel. The Court preliminarily approves administration costs not to exceed $10,000.

6. Unclaimed Settlement Proceeds

The Court preliminarily approves the distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to California Controller’s Office Unclaimed Property Division, with an identification of the Participating Class Member to whom the funds belong, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

7. Release

The Court finds the proposed release of claims reasonable under the circumstances.

8. LWDA Notice

Counsel’s declaration indicates confirmation from the LWDA of receipt of proof of submission of the proposed settlement agreement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) (Declaration of Mirabel ¶90 – Exhibit 8.) However, the Court notes no Exhibit 8 attached to the declaration.

9. Class Certification

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 permits certification “when the question is of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 382.)  The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that class certification under section 382 is proper.  (See City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 460.)  To do so, “[t]he party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.”  (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) 

Here, the Motion and accompanying declaration of Counsel sufficiently sets forth the basis for finding the class is numerous and ascertainable as 281 employees have been identified through Defendant’s employment records. Additionally, common questions of law and fact predominate within the individual causes of action based on class wide policies and procedures of Defendant. Further, the class representative, through their declaration, indicates they will adequately and fairly represent the Class Members and will not place their interests above any Class Member. The Class Representative was employed by Defendant during the relevant time period and thus worked under the same policies and procedures as the Class Members.

Therefore, the Court continues this motion for preliminary approval to August 25, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 2 and orders a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar, presently incurred costs and proof of submission to the LWDA.

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:              Hillsdale Garden Homes vs. Miller, Anthony P.

Case No.:     VCU331697

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Defendants’ Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to (1) Defendant Miller and (2) Defendant Mitchell

Tentative Ruling: (1) and (2) To grant the motions.

Facts

On June 8, 2026, Counsel Larissa A. Branes filed motions to be relieved as counsel as to Defendants Anthony P. Miller and Rhonda L Mitchell. Counsel, as to each motion, filed the following with respect to withdrawing:

(1) MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel;

(2) MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and

(3) MC-053 - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Additionally, Counsel has filed proofs of service of these documents by mail.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; [or] 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) requires that the “notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”

As noted above, Counsel has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) by submitting the notice and motion on MC-051 and by directing the notices and motions to all parties. 

California Rule of Court 3.1362 (c) further mandates that: “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052).

The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). Specifically, the declaration that Rule 3.1362(c) requires must state that the moving attorney attempted to secure a “Substitution of Attorney” from the client as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) and that the client refused to so stipulate.

Here, the declarations are properly made on form MC-052 and use general terms without compromising confidentiality by reference to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16. The declarations are don’t explicitly mention a “Substitution of Attorney” but do note that Defendants refused to stipulate the attorneys could withdraw. Counsel’s declaration states at paragraph 2, “The client has not voluntarily consented to LS Carlson Law, PC's request to be relieved as counsel.” The Court will accept this as sufficient evidence that the substitution was sought but not obtained.

Next, service under Rule 3.1362(d) requires personal service, electronic service, or mail and counsel’s declaration must note the service made. Here, service was by mail on June 8, 2026. The declarations of Counsel indicate that Defendants’ addresses was confirmed as current by email and return receipt requested.

Finally, Rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed orders be lodged with the Court on MC-053 with the moving papers, specifying all hearing dates scheduled, including date of trial. Counsel has complied with this requirement.

The Court grants Defendants’ Counsel’s Motions to Withdraw as to Defendants Miller and Mitchell. 

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:              LVNV Funding LLC vs. Watkins, Ronnette

Case No.:     VCL323413

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion as requested

Facts

On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action for breach of contract.

On January 7, 2026, Defendant answered the complaint “Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT:…” and identifying no such exceptions.

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Defendant’s answer did not deny that the money was owed to Plaintiff. Notice of this motion as mailed to the address indicated on Defendant’s answer.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff states that counsel attempted to contact Defendant regarding this Motion in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a).

“Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).)

Authorities and Analysis

A motion for judgment on the pleadings (MJOP) is used to challenge a pleading in the same manner as a general demurrer, i.e., the challenged pleading (1) establishes that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or (2) does not allege facts sufficient to support a cause of action or defense.(Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1); International Assn. of Firefighters v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4^th 1179,1196.) Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the pleading or be based on facts capable of judicial notice, including court records.  (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 978, 986, and fn. 6.)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be based upon “matters properly the subject to judicial notice.” Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas (1995) 50 Cal.App.4th 1, 5. Judicial notice may be taken “of a party’s admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admissions “cannot reasonably be controverted,’ such as in answer to interrogatories or request for admissions, or in affidavits and declaration filed on the party’s behalf.” (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.) Here, the answer filed by Defendant sufficiently provides the basis to grant this motion, as Defendant unequivocally admits to owing the amount alleged in the complaint.

To establish a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of the contract, (2) Plaintiffs' performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants' breach, and (4) the resulting damage to Plaintiff." (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

As noted above, Defendant does not deny the allegations of the complaint and additionally admits that the entire amount alleged, $1,641.38, is owed.

The Court, therefore, grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court will sign the proposed judgment, which the Court notes includes $393.25 in costs as noted in the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel.

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:              Delayo, Raymond vs. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC

Case No.:     VCU331598

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Background Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff sues Defendants Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, Western Milling, LLC, Viserion Milling, LLC, Post Holdings, Inc., Post Consumer Brands, LLC, and Post Brands Pet Care, LLC (collectively “Corporate Defendants”) and Eric Batchelor (“Defendant Bachelor”) (collectively, Corporate Defendants and Defendant Bachelor to be referred to as “Defendants”) as to the following:

1. Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code § 12940(a))

2. Failure to Accommodate (Gov. Code § 12940(m))

3. Failure to Engage in Interactive Process (Gov. Code § 12940(n))

4. Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h))

5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination & Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(k))

6. Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5)

7. Interference with CFRA Rights (Gov. Code § 12945.2)

8. Invasion of Privacy (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1)

9. Violation of CMIA (Civ. Code § 56 et seq.)

10. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

11. Violation of the Bane Act (Civ. Code § 52.1)

12. Failure to Pay Wages (Lab. Code §§ 201-203, 510, 1194)

13. Failure to Provide Meal & Rest Periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512)

14. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses (Lab. Code § 2802)

15. Failure to Maintain Accurate Records (Lab. Code §§ 226, 1174)

16. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

Defendants move to compel arbitration of these claims pursuant to a document entitled “MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES” (hereinafter “Agreement”) purportedly electronically executed by Plaintiff during the onboarding process.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues waiver via Defendants’ conduct in prosecuting this litigation, that the non-signatories lack standing to enforce the Agreement, that the scope of the Agreement does not cover each claim in the complaint and that the motion should be denied to preclude conflicting rulings.

Facts –Delegation Clause

Though unaddressed in Defendants’ motion to compel and the opposition, the Court notes the following term within the Agreement stating:

“8. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY: In addition to the power to resolve Employment Claims, the arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute concerning or relating to the formation, meaning, interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of this Agreement.”

Authority and Analysis - Delegation Clause

Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1551 summarizes the applicable analysis with respect to delegation clauses:

“A delegation clause requires issues of interpretation and enforceability of an arbitration agreement to be resolved by the arbitrator. Delegation clauses have the potential to create problems of circularity. For example, suppose an arbitration agreement delegates the issue of enforceability to the arbitrator. If the arbitrator concludes that the arbitration agreement is, in fact, not enforceable, this would mean that the entire agreement, including the delegation clause, is unenforceable-a finding that would undermine the arbitrator's jurisdiction to make that finding in the first place. For this reason, courts have treated the delegation clause as a separate agreement to arbitrate solely the issues of enforceability…

“For this reason, when a party is claiming that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable, it is important to determine whether the party is making a specific challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause or is simply arguing that the agreement as a whole is unenforceable. If the party's challenge is directed to the agreement as a whole--even if it applies equally to the delegation clause--the delegation clause is severed out and enforced; thus, the arbitrator, not the court, will determine whether the agreement is enforceable. In contrast, if the party is making a specific challenge to the delegation clause, the court must determine whether the delegation clause itself may be enforced (and can only delegate the general issue of enforceability to the arbitrator if it first determines the delegation clause is enforceable). (Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 70)”

Here, clear and unmistakable language is found in the section of the Agreement quoted above.

Challenge to Agreement in its Entirety as Unenforceable

Here, Plaintiff has challenged the Agreement as unenforceable in its entirety on a number of grounds, including defenses of waiver, issues as to enforceability by certain parties and the scope of the Agreement as compared to the causes of action.

The Court, therefore, interprets this challenge, under Rent-A-Center and Malone, above, a challenge “…directed to the agreement as a whole--even if it applies equally to the delegation clause--the delegation clause is severed out and enforced; thus, the arbitrator, not the court, will determine whether the agreement is enforceable.”

Therefore, the Court will sever out the delegation clause and enforce it.

As such, the Court grants the motion and compels issues of interpretation, applicability, enforceability, and formation to the arbitrator pursuant to the Agreement.

The Court further stays this matter pending the arbitrator’s rulings on these issues.

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:              Flores, Rafael vs. HR Mobile Services, Inc.

Case No.:     VCU314557

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and set the motion for final approval for March 9, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 2.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 35% of the gross settlement fund of $150,000 or $52,500 and costs not to exceed $20,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel.

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 indicates that the firm has spent 94 hours at rates ranging from $950 to $600, per hour totaling a lodestar of $83,420 resulting in a negative lodestar (Supplemental Declaration of Otkupman ¶2)

Further, Counsel indicates presently incurred costs of $5,425.41. Therefore the Court approves costs not to exceed $20,000.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $150,000 are preliminarily approved as follows:

Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (35%):	$52,500
Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to):	$20,000
Preliminarily Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$10,000
Preliminarily Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$10,000
Preliminarily Approved Total PAGA Penalties	$25,000
Preliminarily Approved Net Settlement Amount	$32,500

Therefore, the Court sets the motion for final approval hearing for March 9, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 2.

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:              Huerta, John vs. Kaweah Container, Inc.

Case No.:     VCU316514

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:       Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-9, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 10-13, 15-29, 34-53, 55, 58-67, 69-72, 80-81, 83-85, 89-92, 96-102, and 107-108 and (3) Requests for Production Nos. 1-82

Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing.

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:              TD Bank USA N.A. vs. Douangdy, Alicia Z

Case No.:     PCL327457

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:       Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 8 admitted.

Facts

On or about January 7, 2026, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to the address on Defendant’s answer. As of the date of the filing of this motion, no response has been received by Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks to deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 8 admitted.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. Here, Defendant has failed to serve a timely response and Plaintiff has moved for an order to deem the admissions admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 8 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

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:              Romero, Luis Fernando vs. Young's, Inc et al

Case No.:     PCU324051

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:       Defendant Young’s, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Romero

Tentative Ruling: To find the motion moot; to impose sanctions against Plaintiff, and counsel of record, in the amount of $1,110 due no later than  fifteen (15) days from the date of this hearing. 

Facts

In this class action matter, Plaintiff alleges a number of Labor Code and Business and Professions Code violations against Defendant.

On July 9, 2026, Defendant filed this motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.

In support, Defendant states that, on September 11, 2025, a notice of deposition of Plaintiff was served setting the deposition initially for October 10, 2025. (Declaration of Tapia ¶3.)  On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff served an objection and indicated Plaintiff would not be produced on this date. (Declaration of Tapia ¶7.)

Defendant has served additional deposition notices, including one setting the deposition for June 15, 2026 in Los Angeles, a location requested by Plaintiff. (Declaration of Tapia ¶¶9-25.) On June 13, 2026, Plaintiff served an objection to the deposition. (Declaration of Tapia ¶26.)

On June 15, 2026, Defendant, via counsel, appeared at the deposition along with Defendant’s representative, a court reporter, a videographer and a Spanish translator. (Declaration of Tapia ¶31.) Neither Plaintiff nor counsel attended the deposition and a notice of non-appearance was taken by Defendant. (Declaration of Tapia ¶32.)

Therefore, Defendant’s counsel indicates attempts to contact Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the non-appearance. (Declaration of Tapia ¶¶34-47.)

Defendant seeks, as sanctions $9,225 in attorneys’ fees (20.5 hours at $450 per hour), $3,488 in costs related to the deposition and $60 filing fee cost.

Defendant has filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion.

On July 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a late opposition to this motion. Plaintiff indicates that Plaintiff’s deposition occurred July 16, 2026 and therefore the motion to compel is moot. Further, that the completed deposition does not require that the Court award sanctions.

Authority and Analysis

The Court agrees that, where the deposition has taken place, no motion to compel the deposition may be ordered.

However, as acknowledged by Plaintiff, California Rule of Court, rule 3.1348(a) states:

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

As to sanctions, section 2025.040(g)(1), which states “…the court shall impose monetary sanctions under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent…unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Section 2023.030 similarly indicates monetary sanctions include “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” absent substantial justification or other such circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The Court will award sanctions as to the filing of this motion.

However, the Court will reduce the hourly rate to $350. The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id.)  

Additionally, the Court will reduce the 8.5 hours incurred drafting the motion to 3 hours, will not award anticipated time or the time as to the notice of non-opposition or objection.

As such, the Court awards $1,050 in attorneys’ fees as to this motion. Further, the Court will award the $60 filing fee related to this motion, for a total of $1,110.

Second, Plaintiff indicates it has satisfied the invoice as non-appearance fees and therefore no sanctions should be imposed as to this expense.

Third, as to the travel costs and time, the Court notes  "Any party, other than the deponent, or attorney of record may appear and participate in an oral deposition by telephone, videoconference, or other remote electronic means…." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1010(b)-(c) [emphasis added].) Here, attendance by counsel in person appears optional. The Court will not award the travel costs or attorney hours incurred via travel.

Therefore, the Court imposes sanctions, in total, of $1,750 against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the signed order. 

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:              Gomez, Jose vs. SUTTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Case No.:     PCU329412 (consolidated with PCU331343)

Date:           August 4, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:       Defendant’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One and (4) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (5) Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (4): To grant the motions and order responses due no later than within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for these motions; (5) To grant the motion and deem Nos. 1 through 26 admitted; to issue sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,425, due no later within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling; to order Defendant to give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (5)

This insurance breach of contract and bad faith claim involves a dispute between Plaintiff and his homeowners’ insurer, Defendant Sutton, regarding coverage for alleged water damage to Plaintiff’s residence. 

On April 3, 2026, Defendant, via counsel, served (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (4) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and (5) Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiff.

Responses were due on or before May 5, 2026.

No such responses were received by that date.

Defendant voluntarily extended the time to respond without objections to May 22, 2026. However, no responses were received and these motions followed.

Defendant seeks to compel initial responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (4) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to deem admissions admitted as to (5) Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Further, Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $735 per each motion, consisting of 3 hours at the rate of $225 per hour plus a $60 filing fee.

No opposition to the motions appear to have been filed.

Authority and Analysis

(1), (2) and (3) Interrogatories

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set of form interrogatories, second set of form interrogatories and first set of special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant’s first set of form interrogatories, second set of form interrogatories and first set of special interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.

(4) Requests for Production

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Defendant’s first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendant shall give notice.

(5) Requests for Admissions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response and Defendant has moved for an order to deem the admission admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions 1 through 26 of Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

Sanctions

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280(c) (Admissions), 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court imposes sanctions as requested by Defendant in the total amount of $1,425 consisting of one (1) hour for each of the five (5) motions plus a $60 filing fee as to each motion, at the $225 rate.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally and are due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of these rulings on these motions. Defendant shall give notice.

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.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared August 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	Comments
VPR054168	In the Matter of Nicklas, Brian William	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Petition Item 5a: (5) or (6) re any surviving child omitted; (7) issue of a predeceased child selected, not named in Item 8
VPR054180	In the Matter of Guzman, Jesus	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 5a(2) omitted: re any surviving issue of a predeceased child. 2. Petition Item 7 omitted: the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that the estate is property passing to the surviving spouse necessary to establish the community property or quasi-community property claim, Prob C § 13651(a)(3), (4). 3. Petition Item 9: the relationships of parties to decedent omitted. 4. Notice of Hearing not served on all parties 15 days prior, Prob C § 13655.
VPR053354	In the Matter of Sierra, Virginia Louise	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR053790	In the Matter of Andreson, Gair M.	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Inventory and Appraisal:  missing Attachment 2
VPR053623	In the Matter of Ali Ahmed Saleh and Nahklah Ahmed Saleh Family Trust	Petition for Attorney’s Fees	Appearance Required	Documents in order. Objection filed
VPR054177	In the Matter of the Al James Reid Revocable Trust of June 11, 2024	Petition to Determine Trust Asset	Appearance Required	Petition: Exhibits A – D not attached
VPR052441	In the Matter of Lawmaster, Virgil Loren	Hearing: Other	Appearance Required	Review of Status Report
VPR054171	In the Matter of Lopez, Daniel	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054143	In the Matter of Gonsalez Zuniga, Valeria	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing and Citation not filed. Screening Form, Item 16 omitted. All required documents are not dated.
VPR054119	In the Matter of Ramirez, Rosenda	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:

                                         Probate calendar for JULY 30, 2026

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302 or 1430.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR053470	In the Matter of Gonzalez, Rita Maria	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
PPR053526	In the Matter of Moreno, Judi Arlene	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Amended Petition has not been filed, Notice to Bertha Moreno remains outstanding
PPR053968	In the Matter of Perez, Rosita	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Petition Item 5a (3) or (4) omitted. NEED Original will in Spanish to be lodged with attached copy of certified translation. Publication Improper, filed 4/14/26:  Published once, not in accordance with Probate C § 8120
PPR054007	In the Matter of Sastre, Catalina	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
PPR054087	In the Matter of Moraga, Rita	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	OSC ISSUED
PPR054172	In the Matter of Boyd, David	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Matter appears to be in order
PPR054173	In the Matter of Kipp, Helen	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Form DE-111(A-3e) Waiver of Bond by Heir or Beneficiary is not attached to the petition

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

         Visalia- Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide; Honorable David C. Mathias

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared July 30, 2026 that allow for posting:

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302.

Hearing Date & Time	Department Number	Case Number	Case Name	Comments
7/24/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR054014	IMO R.V.	Need Notice of Hearing to be filed with proof of service on ALL RELATIVES indicating they were served with15 calendar days notice, as required by PROB Code §1460,1510, with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for Appointment DECLARATION of attendance of Guardianship Orientation needs to be filed DOJ BACKGROUND RECORD CHECK needs to be completed
7/24/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR053990	In the Matter of Thompson, Jaylah Rae	Appoint Guardian, THOMPSON Need Notice of Hearing to be filed with proof of service on relatives indicating they were served with15 calendar days notice, as required by PROB Code §1460,1510, with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for Appointment DECLARATION of attendance of Guardianship Orientation needs to be filed DOJ BACKGROUND RECORD CHECK needs to be completed FORM ICWA-030 needs to be filed
7/24/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR053990	In the Matter of Thompson, Jaylah Rae	Appoint Guardian, RENTERIA/CREECH Need Notice of Hearing to be filed with proof of service on relatives indicating they were served with15 calendar days notice, as required by PROB Code §1460,1510, with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for Appointment DECLARATION of attendance of Guardianship Orientation needs to be filed DOJ BACKGROUND RECORD CHECK needs to be completed
7/24/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR045613	In the Matter of Hancock, Felicia Nicole	OSC Hearing
7/24/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR043409	In the Matter of McGuire, Jayden Allen	OSC Hearing