Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, February 26, 2026, are:

Re:                 Arroyo, Nayeli vs. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company

Case No.:   VCU312956

Date:            February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Hearing re: Final Distribution of Settlement Fund

Tentative Ruling: On February 13, 2026, the settlement administrator, through its case manager, filed a declaration indicating that the deadline to cash settlement award checks is June 8, 2026. Therefore, the Court continues this hearing regarding final distribution to July 16, 2026; 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.

Re:                ALBUS vs. Alpaugh Irrigation District

Case No.:   VCU312973

Date:           February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Lynne Brooks for Defendants Santokh Toor aka Bitta Toor and Toor Farming, LLC in this action.

Tentative Ruling: To grant the application of attorney Lynne Brooks of the Law Offices of Paul Seymore to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants Santokh Toor aka Bitta Toor and Toor Farming, LLC in this action.

Facts and Analysis

The Court’s file indicates that timely and proper notice was given to all parties affected by attorney Brooks’ application to appear pro hac vice for Defendants Santokh Toor aka Bitta Toor and Toor Farming, LLC.

The Court finds that attorney Brooks meets the statutory requirements under California Rule of Court 9.40(a) to submit applications to appear pro hac vice before this Court, and that the contents of this application of attorney Brooks indicates that association with California counsel Law Office of Jeffrey Cabot Myers and as such meets the statutory requirements of California Rule of Court 9.40(c) and (d). The Court’s file for this matter further indicates that that the applicable fees that must be paid to the State Bar of California under Rule 9.40(e) to support the application for admission pro hac vice have been tendered to the State Bar.

The Court further notes that attorney Brooks’ application meets the statutory requirements under California Rule of Court 9.40(d) for pro hac vice applications and that attorney Brooks’ zero prior appearances before the courts in this state are not sufficiently numerous to warrant denial of the present application under California Rule of Court 9.40(b).

Based on the foregoing, the application of attorney Brooks to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants Santokh Toor aka Bitta Toor and Toor Farming, LLC in this action is granted.

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.

Re:                Berry, Robert vs. Wildfire Defense Systems, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU315054

Date:           February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA

Tentative Ruling: To continue this motion for preliminary approval to March 12, 2026; 8:30 am; D1; to order a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar and presently incurred costs.

1. Sufficiency of Amount of Settlement (Net Estimated: $266,334)

The gross settlement amount is $500,000. Plaintiff estimates approximately 381 proposed Class Members, providing an estimated average payout of $699.03 per member.

The Class Members consist of:

All individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant Wildfire Defense Systems, Inc. who were classified as non-exempt in the State of California at any time during the period from November 13, 2020 through August 13, 2025.

Plaintiff primarily alleged the following violations in the operative amended complaint: (1) unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 & 1198; (4) failure to provide required meal periods in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (5) failure to provide required rest periods in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226; (7) failure to reimburse employees for required expenses in violation of California Labor Code § 2802; (8) failure to pay sick pay wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 233, and 246; and (9) Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“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 Counsel Nordrehaug ¶6.) The maximum potential damages were calculated to be $714,844, with potential waiting time penalties calculated at a maximum of $1,558,724, and potential maximum wage statement penalties calculated at $109,700. (Declaration of Counsel Nordrehaug ¶6.) 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.

After agreeing to participate in early mediation, Defendants 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 $500,000 are proposed as follows:

Court Approved Attorney Fees (33.3%):	$166,666
Attorney Costs (up to):	$22,000
Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$15,000
Settlement Administrator Costs	$10,000
PAGA payment to the LWDA	$20,000
Net Settlement Amount	$266,334

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 Award to Class Representative

The Court preliminarily approves Plaintiff Robert Bery, as Class Representative for purposes of settlement only. The proposed enhancement award to Plaintiff is $15,000.

The Court has, in past cases, approved enhancement awards of $5,000.00 routinely.

Enhancement payments “are fairly typical in class action cases.” (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1393.) Enhancement payments “are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general.” (Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp. (9th Cir. 2009) 563 F.3d 948, 958-959.) “[T]he rationale for making enhancement or incentive awards to named plaintiffs is that he or she should be compensated for the expense or risk he has incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4^th 785, 806.)

The Court’s review of the declaration of Plaintiff indicates justification for the $5,000 award, but no amount higher. The Court approves an enhancement payment of $5,000.

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $500,000 or $166,666 and costs not to exceed $22,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel.

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 $22,000 without a declaration which states the costs currently expended. 

The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action attorneys through the declarations of counsel.

5.  Claims Administrator

The Court preliminary approves Apex Class Action, LLC as the claims administrator for this class action based on prior experience with this settlement administrator in other class actions litigated in this Court and the declaration of Sean Hartranft. 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 Legal Aid at Work, 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 Nordrehaug ¶ 22.)

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 381 35 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 March 12, 2026; 8:30 am; D1 and orders a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar and presently incurred costs.

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.

Re:                Connely, Steven vs. Tulare Healthcare and Wellness Center LP

Case No.:  VCU315931

Date:           February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Defendant’s Motion to Strike Treble Damages under Civil Code section 3345

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion to strike as to references to Civil Code section 3345 without leave to amend.

Facts

The complaint alleges negligence, violation of the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, and violations of the resident’s rights against Defendants.

In the prayer, Plaintiff seeks “Punitive damages according to proof, including treble punitive damages per Civil Code section 3345.”

Defendants move to strike this reference, arguing that “Section 3345 applies only to unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages under this section as to elder abuse or any other claim because those claims are not actions to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition.

Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.  

Authority and Analysis

 Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Irrelevant allegations include allegations that are not essential to the statement of a claim, allegations that are not pertinent to or supported by the claim and demands for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b), (c).)

“[W]hen a substantive defect is clear from the face of a complaint, such as a violation of the applicable statute of limitations or a purported claim of right which is legally invalid, a defendant may attack that portion of the cause of action by filing a motion to strike.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682–1683.)

Civil Code section 3345

Civ Code § 3345 applies to "actions brought by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of senior citizens and disabled persons "to redress unfair or deceptive acts practices or unfair methods of competition." (Civ. Code, § 3345.)

Further, subsection (b) states:

(b) Whenever a trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose either a fine, or a civil penalty or other penalty, or any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter, and the amount of the fine, penalty, or other remedy is subject to the trier of fact’s discretion, the trier of fact shall consider the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, in addition to other appropriate factors, in determining the amount of fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy to impose. Whenever the trier of fact makes an affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, it may impose a fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy in an amount up to three times greater than authorized by the statute, or, where the statute does not authorize a specific amount, up to three times greater than the amount the trier of fact would impose in the absence of that affirmative finding.

(1) Whether the defendant knew or should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens, disabled persons, or veterans.

(2) Whether the defendant’s conduct caused one or more senior citizens, disabled persons, or veterans to suffer: loss or encumbrance of a primary residence, principal employment, or source of income; substantial loss of property set aside for retirement, or for personal or family care and maintenance; or substantial loss of payments received under a pension or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen, disabled person, or veteran.

(3) Whether one or more senior citizens, disabled persons, or veterans are substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to the defendant’s conduct because of age, poor health or infirmity, impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and actually suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct.”

Civil Code section 3345 provides for treble damages in an action "to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition" brought on behalf of a senior citizen or disabled person, "whenever a trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose either a fine, or a civil penalty or other penalty, or any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter." (Civ. Code, § 3345, subd. (b). The 9^th Circuit noted that Civil Code section 3345 “[o]n its face, therefore…allows for the trebling, in certain cases involving senior citizens and disabled individuals, of fines or penalties which are otherwise ‘authorized by a statute.’” (Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 398, 405.)

The Elder Abuse Act is not penal in nature, but rather provides a private cause of action permitting the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs in order “to enable interested persons to engage attorneys to take up the cause of abused elderly persons and dependent adults." (Wel. & Inst. Code, § 15600(j).) The Elder Abuse Act further does not contain references to penalties or fines, apart from theft or embezzlement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15656(c), which is not alleged in this matter.

The Court interprets Civil Code section 3345 to provide treble damages recovery only where the Court has imposed a statutory fine, civil penalty or other remedy the purpose of which is to punish or deter. (Clark v. Super. Ct. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 605) Although the treble recovery provision can apply to a remedy for which no dollar amount is stated (“…where the statute does not authorize a specific amount…”), the provision can only apply when based on a statutory remedy "in the nature of a penalty" which "has 'the purpose or effect' of punishing or deterring. [Citation.]" (Id. at 614.) In Clark, “[b]ecause restitution in a private action brought under the unfair competition law is measured by what was taken from the plaintiff, that remedy is not a penalty and hence does not fall within the trebled recovery provision of Civil Code section 3345, subdivision (b)." (Id. at 614 - 615.) 

Further, Civil Code section 3345 appears to focus on economic loss rather than physical harm, though the Court notes the reference to “substantial physical…damage” in (b)(3). The Court’s research indicates only published California case discussing Civil Code section 3345 in any significant manner as to elder abuse or neglect involved claims of financial elder abuse. (Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328, 328.) The Court applies this focus on economic harm, as well, to the cause of action for violation of patient’s rights.

Finally, Negligence is a common law theory for which section 3345 would not appear to apply under the discussion above as to the requisite statutory basis.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion to strike references to Civil Code section 3345 without leave to amend.

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.

Re:                City of Farmersville vs. Ortiz, Toni

Case No.:  VCU323329

Date:           February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Amended Answer

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion with leave to amend; Defendant shall have twenty (20) days to file a further amended, verified answer. Case Management Conference is Continued to April 15, 2026; 8:30 am; D1. 

Facts

In this verified abatement action, Plaintiff sues, amongst others, Defendant Carrie Ortiz.

Defendant Carrie Ortiz initially filed an unverified answer and the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer with leave to amend.

On December 1, 2025, Defendant filed an amended answer, which remains unverified.

Authority and Analysis

Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 446(a) requires that a defendant responding to a verified complaint must file a verified answer: "When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified."

Here, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint and Defendant Carrie Ortiz’s amended answer is unverified.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion.

Like a demurrer, the motion cannot be granted without leave where it appears  reasonably possible to amend the pleading. (Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, and Woolverton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 1219, 1226 [as to demurrers.])

Therefore, the Court grants the motion with leave to amend. Defendant Carrie Ortiz shall have twenty (20) days to file a further amended, verified answer.

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.

Re:                Campos, Joseph vs. Kaweah Health et al

Case No.:  VCU326043

Date:           February 26, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and set a CMC at the hearing; Counsel may appear in any manner.

Facts and Analysis

On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed this matter without prejudice as to all Defendants, including Defendant Kaweah Delta Health Care District dba Kaweah Health.

On December 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for relief from default, indicating that counsel mistakenly dismissed the entire action instead of limiting the dismissal to Defendant Kaweah. Counsel has filed a declaration as to this mistake.

The court has broad discretion to set aside the entry of default, default judgment, or a dismissal, but that discretion can be exercised only if the defendant establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure and within the set time limits.  

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part: 

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

When based upon a client’s acts, relief is discretionary.

Here, however, counsel appears to assert their own acts which resulted in the dismissal. Where an “attorney affidavit of fault” is filed, there is no requirement that the attorney’s mistake inadvertence, etc., be excusable.  Relief must be granted even where the default or dismissal resulted from inexcusable neglect by the defendant’s attorney (Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4^th 868 897 (disapproved on other grounds in Even Zohar Const. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4^th 830, 845) The Court is not concerned with the reason for the attorney’s inexcusable mistake (Billing v. Health Plan of America (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 250, 256) The trial court may deny the motion if it finds that the attorney’s declaration of fault is not credible. (Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4^th 907, 915.)

Here, the Court finds the declaration credible and therefore grants the motion as requested. The Court will set a case management conference at the hearing. Counsel may appear in any manner.

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.

Examiner Notes for Probate Matters Calendared

• Visalia Division 
• South County Justice Center Division