Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, November 5, 2026, are:

Re:                Ramirez Lopez, Sergio vs. Gold Star Cattle Company, LLC

Case No.:   VCU317388

Date:           November 5, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

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

Tentative Ruling: To continue this motion to November 19, 2026; 8:30 am; D1; and order a supplemental declaration as to the lodestar and presently incurred costs filed no later than five (5) court days prior thereto

1. Sufficiency of Amount of Settlement (Net Estimated: $104,890.00)

The gross settlement amount is $242,760.00 Plaintiff estimates approximately 250 proposed Class Members, providing an estimated average payout of $419.56 per member.

The proposed Class Members consist of:

“all non-exempt persons employed by Defendant who worked within the period from January 23, 2021 through the date of Preliminary Approval or 45 days following the execution of this Agreement, whichever comes first.”

The operative complaint alleges causes of action for (1) failure to provide require meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to timely pay wages; (6) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; (9) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; (10) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (11) civil penalties pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act (“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 Solouki ¶¶ 12 – 22.) The total estimated maximum recovery in the event of an outright victory was $1,646,054.32. 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 mediation, Defendant informally produced all 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 $242,760.00 are proposed as follows:

Proposed Court Approved Attorney Fees (33%):	$80,920.00
Proposed Attorney Costs (up to):	$25,000.00
Proposed Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$10,000.00
Proposed Settlement Administrator Costs	$7,950.00
Proposed Total PAGA Payment:	$14,000.00
Proposed Net Settlement Amount	$104,890.00

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 60 days. The Court regularly approves notice periods of 60 days or longer. The class notice period is therefore 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 Sergio Ramirez Lopez as Class Representative for settlement purposes. The proposed enhancement award to Plaintiff is $10,000.00.

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.)

Therefore, the Court will approve a $5,000.00 enhancement.

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 33% of the gross settlement fund of $242,760.00 or $80,920.00 and costs not to exceed $25,000.00 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 $25,000.00 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 ILYM Group, Inc. 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 its President.  The Court preliminarily approves administration costs not to exceed $7,950.00

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

The declaration of Solouki indicates confirmation from the LWDA of receipt of proof of submission of the proposed settlement agreement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) (Declaration of Solouki ¶50 – Exhibit D.)

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 250 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 November 19, 2026; 8:30 am; D1 and orders a supplemental declaration as to the lodestar and presently incurred costs filed no later than five (5) court days prior to the continued 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:                Sedillo, Erminia vs. Sobrepena, Kurt

Case No.:  VCU318113

Date:          November 5, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Miranda Domenici (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Miranda Domenici and (3) Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Miranda Domenici; (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted as to Defendant Miranda Domenici; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (3): To grant the motions order responses within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; (4) To deem Admission Nos. 1 through 10 admitted; to impose sanctions of  $840 total due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Plaintiff shall give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (4)

In this matter, Plaintiff sues Defendants for wrongful death.

On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant Miranda Domenici with (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and (4) Requests for Admissions, Set One, via mail.

As of the filing of these motions on August 19, 2026, no responses have been provided.

Therefore, Plaintiff moves to compel initial responses and deem admissions admitted. Plaintiff further seeks $840 in sanctions.

No opposition appears filed.

Authority and Analysis

(1) and (2) Interrogatories

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

(3) Requests for Production

Based on Defendant’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 Defendant provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiff shall give notice.

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

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions 1 through 10 of Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff on Defendant in the total amount of $840, consisting of two hours at the $300 rate for all four motions and $240 in filing fees. The Court notes there is no meet and confer requirement and all that is necessary to obtain the relief requested on this motion to compel initial responses and deem admissions admitted is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time. Sanctions are due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiff 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.

Re:                Rideout, Jazzmin vs. First Pitch Entertainment, LLC et al

Case No.:   VCU329435

Date:           November 5, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Special Interrogatories, Set One as to Defendant First Pitch

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-2, 11-14, 21, 51, 55-56, and 59, Set One as to Defendant First Pitch

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance as to Requests for Production Nos. 4-6, 8, 10, 15, 24-34, 38, 43-45, 52-53, 60, 62-63 as to Defendant First Pitch

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two as to Defendant First Pitch

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (4): 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:                Aguila, Miguel vs. FCA US, LLC

Case No.:  VCU334384

Date:           November 5, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Amend

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion as moot

Facts and Analysis

In this matter, the Court, on July 16, 2026, entered the following ruling on FCA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings:

“To deny the motion as to the first, second, and fifth causes of action; to grant the motion without leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action; to grant the motion as to the third and sixth causes of action with leave to amend; Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to file an amended complaint.”

No amended complaint has been filed.

On September 17, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the third, fourth and sixth causes of action. The Court notes the motion also contains language such as “As such, the Court should dismiss the matter, with judgement entered in FCA US’s favor” and cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f)(2).

However, the Court interprets section 581(f)(2) as applying to situations where a motion for judgment on the pleadings has been granted as to all causes of action in the complaint. Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th, 603, 613 discuss, as cited by Defendant, dismissal of the entire action, under the Court’s discretion, for failure to amend. In Leader, the trial court sustained demurrers to complaints and amended complaints in their entirety. (Id. at 608.)

This is not the situation here. The Court considers the third, fourth and sixth causes of action dismissed by its ruling on the motion and Plaintiff’s subsequent failure to amend. The Court will not enter a partial judgment as to those causes of action, absent express authority .  

The Court notes the language under section 581(f) “may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant” but that here, Defendant FCA requests partial dismissal as to three causes of action.

Therefore, the Court finds this motion moot, but notes that the Court considers the third, fourth and sixth causes of action no longer at issue via its ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the expiration of the leave to amend period provided.

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 November 4, 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
VPR054200	In the Matter of Horst, Mark Edward	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054208	In the Matter of Derrick, Sadie Yakne	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 5a (3) or (4) omitted: re any surviving registered domestic partner. 2. Petition Item 8: relationships of parties to decedent omitted. 3. Notice of Petition to Administer not served on all parties 15 days prior. 4. Proof of Publication not filed
VPR054222	In the Matter of Burns, Gregory A	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 3c omitted: Decedent's residence at time of death. 2. Petition Item 3e(3): Bond Waivers not filed by all beneficiaries. 3. Duties & Liabilities of Personal Representatives (DE-147) not filed. 4. Supplemental Statements of Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed. 5. Notice of Petition to Administer not filed. 6. Proof of Publication not filed
VPR053982	In the Matter of Estudillo Ramirez, Maria	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	1. Duties & Liabilities of Personal Representative (DE-147) not filed, Prob C § 8404(a). 2. Supplemental Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4). 3. Decedent is a citizen of a foreign country: if a citizen of a foreign country dies without leaving a will or leaves a will without naming an executor, notice shall be given to a recognized diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country, Prob C § 8113. 4. Proof of Publication not filed
VPR053982	In the Matter of Estudillo Ramirez, Maria	Contested Hearing - Spousal Property Petition	Appearance Required	Contested
VPR053982	In the Matter of Estudillo Ramirez, Maria	Contested Hearing - Probate	Appearance Required	Contested
VPR051795	In the Matter of Bertussi, Garryn Paul	Petition for Transfer Orders - Conservatorship	Appearance Required	Notice of Withdrawal of Petition submitted to court
VPR054207	In the Matter of Tarvin, Diana	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054117	In the Matter of Madriz Raya, Manuel Jr	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing and Citation not filed. Investigation has not been completed
VPR054115	In the Matter of Emerick, Ralph Raymond	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Filed documents in order. Investigation has not been completed
VPR054152	In the Matter of Andrews, Vicki Darlene	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Conservator Screening Form (GC-314) not filed as required by CRC, rule 7.1050
VPR050525	In the Matter of Cartagena, Maria Carmen	OSC Hearing	Appearance Required	Second Accounting has not been filed

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:   Thursday, October 29, 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
PPR053821	In the Matter of Ruthenbeck, Marc	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance required	Attachment to the Petition, Exhibit B is illegible There is a discrepancy between the appraisal/inventory amount and what was reported in the trust account. There is no attachment for the Decedent’s Cash Asset showing this was placed into the blocked Attorney Client Trust Account.
PPR054033	In the Matter of Frazier, Joan	Final Distribution Hearing		Matter appears to be in order
PPR054202	In the Matter of Bjorkman, Douglas	Letters of Administration	Appearance required	Caption- SELECTED Authorization to Administer Under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. LIMITED AUTHORITY Selection made at 2c to act with FULL & LIMITED authority under IEAE Petitioner claims priority in Attachment 3g(2)(a) – NO ATTACHMENT explaining priority NOT FILED - Waiver of Bond all heirs NOT FILED - Notice of Petition to Administer served on all parties 15 days prior, Prob C 8110 NOT FILED - Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number NOT FILED - Proof of Publication NO Order submitted
PPR054331	In the Matter of Rutledge, Clayton Reynold	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	The Petition was filed without the required DE‑300 attachment as required by Probate Code section 13152(e). It appears that the Order references an attachment concerning the distribution in the related case, and that attachment addresses distribution pursuant to an agreement described in a Declaration. However, in this case, there is no comparable filing or documentation regarding such an arrangement. Please clarify or reconcile this discrepancy
PPR054330	In the Matter of Rutledge, Joann Gail	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	The Petition was filed without the required DE‑300 attachment as required by Probate Code section 13152(e).
PPR054338	In the Matter of Ureno Gamboa, Francisca	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Notice of Hearing not served on proposed conservatee at least 5 court days prior, unless the court for good cause otherwise  orders, Prob C §2250(e)
PPR054364	In RE: The Suarez Family Trust Dated August 9, 2010	Petition Hearing	Appearance required	Notice of Hearing was not timely served – service was conducted by mail on 9/30/26, missing the deadline by one day for the required 30 days' notice prior to hearing set for this date, 10/30/26, Prob C § 851(b)

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

GUARDIANSHIP CASES

         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 AS STATED BELOW 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
11/2/26 8:30 AM	Department  9	VPR054149	In the Matter of S.S.	No procedural issues to address