Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, October 29, 2026, are:

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

Case No.:   VCU315054

Date:           October 29, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

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

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to set the Final Compliance Hearing for June 10, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

Facts and Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement, attorneys’ fees, costs, enhancement award, LWDA payment and class certification for settlement purposes came on for hearing on October 29, 2026.  The Court finds and rules as follows:

On October 17, 2026, the settlement administrator Apex Class Action, LLC, through its Case Manager, filed a declaration detailing the following events.

On April 7, 2026, the administrator  received a mailing list of 374 potential class members from Defendant’s counsel with names, contact information, social security numbers and relevant employment information.

On April 24, 2025, after the administrator processed the names through the National Change of Address Database and updated the list with any updated addresses located, the administrator sent class notice by mail to 374 members. 31 notices were returned and updated addresses for 27 were obtained and notices were mailed. Therefore, 4 notices have been deemed undeliverable.

Class members had sixty (60) days, until June 23, 2026 to submit objections, disputes and/or requests for exclusions. Zero (0) requests for exclusion and zero (0) valid objections have been received from class members. One (1) dispute has been received. However, Defendant approved the modification to permit the additional workweek. Therefore, all 374 Class Members or 100% of the Class will participate in the settlement.

The court presumes the settlement is fair and reasonable given (a) that it was reached through arms-length bargaining at mediation, (b) that there was sufficient time for investigation and discovery since commencement of litigation (c) class counsel have particularized experience with the claims at issue in the case, and (d) there appear to be no disputes or objections.  (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4^th 1794, 1802.) 

The Court notes the gross settlement amount was increased by $27,557.76 due to the escalator clause being triggered based on the total number of workweeks.

A net settlement amount of $297,509.60 is available to pay to the class members in accordance with the terms of settlement. The highest class portion to be paid is approximately $5,240.31, the average portion is currently estimated to be approximately $763.94, and the lowest portion is currently estimated to be approximately $26.33.

The Court believes basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, in accordance with Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4^th 116, 133.  This case involved extensive informal discovery and investigation of disputed claims, including review and analysis by Plaintiff’s expert.  The settlement avoids significant risks and delay that would result from further litigation of the case, which would include, amongst other matters, certification proceedings, trial, and the possibility of further delay and cost resulting from appeals.

Class counsel has provided an updated declaration in support of the requests for attorney fees representing 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $527,557.76 or $175,852.59 in fees.

Here, Counsel indicates that the firm has spent 207.6 hours on this case, at a rates ranging from $950 to 2450 per hour, providing a base lodestar of $167,135.50. (Declaration of Nordrehaug – Ex 3.) Therefore, to award the amount requested, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 1.2. The Court permits a maximum multiplier on these types of cases of 1.5 and therefore the fees are preliminarily approved.

Counsel has additionally provided sufficient cost information indicating actual costs incurred in the amount of $20,205.57 (Declaration of Nordrehaug – Ex 3.)

The Court believes the requested attorney fees and costs appear reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, counsel has provided a sufficient declaration to demonstrate adequate previous experience with class actions to further support the reasonableness of the award.

The settlement administrator has provided, in the declaration describing the work it has performed on the case, a value of services totaling $8,990.00.

The settlement agreement designates Legal Aid at Work in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

The Court previously approved a representative payment of $5,000.00 and finds that the requested enhancement payment is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, the Court confirms its conditional certification of the settlement class. The Court finds no significant events have occurred that would cause it to change its prior determination that the settlement class met all requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 for certification for settlement purposes at the time it granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval.

On review of the declarations and pleadings submitted, the Court finds, given the established presumption that the settlement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and, particularly, given the absence of any objection or opposition following the class notice, that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that the motion for final approval should be, and is hereby, granted.

Therefore, the following deductions from the gross settlement of $527,557.76 are approved as follows:

Approved Court Approved Attorney Fees:	$175,852.59
Approved Incurred Attorney Costs:	$20,205.57
Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$5,000.00
Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$8,990.00
Approved PAGA Payment (LWDA and Aggrieved Employees)	$20,000.00
Approved Net Settlement Amount	$297,509.60

The Court shall enter its order of final approval and judgment in this case on the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff on October 5, 2026.

Final Compliance Hearing is set for June 10, 2027; 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. 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:                 Schlegal, Albert vs. Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU333483

Date:           October 29, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses as to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc; (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (4) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc; (5) Requests for Production, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (6) Requests for Production, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.; and

                        Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Admissions Admitted, Set One, as to (7) Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware and (8) Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

Tentative Ruling:

(1) through (6): To grant the motions; to order responses due within thirty (30) days of notice of this motion;

(7) and (8): To grant the motions and deem Admission Nos. 1 through 31 admitted as to Defendants Bruce Allen Wickware and Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

 To impose sanctions of $1640 each as to Defendants Bruce Allen Wickware and Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc. due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion.

 To order Plaintiff to give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (8)

In this negligence matter, Plaintiff sues Defendants Bruce Allen Wickware and Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

Plaintiff served the following discovery electronically on Defendants, via counsel, on June 11, 2026: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc; (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (4) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc; (5) Requests for Production, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; (6) Requests for Production, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc; (7) Requests for Admissions, Set One, as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware; and (8) Requests for Admissions, Set One, as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

Responses were due, after extension, no later than August 10, 2026.

On August 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed these motions, having received no responses.

Plaintiff seeks to compel initial responses and deem admissions admitted as to Defendants, and for sanctions of $2,560 as to each motion.

No opposition appears filed.

(1) through (4) - Interrogatories

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

(5) and (6) – Requests for Production

Based on Defendants’ failures to respond to the first sets of requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Defendants provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s first sets 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.

(7) and (8) – Deem Admissions Admitted

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, Defendants have failed to serve timely responses 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 31 of Plaintiff’s First Sets of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted as to Defendants Bruce Allen Wickware and Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc.

Sanctions

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.)

Here, the notices only identify Defendants as the party against whom the monetary sanction is sought.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions for 5 hours at the rate of $500 per hour for each motion, plus the $60 filing fee.

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 is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time.

Further, “[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [internal citation omitted]. “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id.)

The Court will set the hourly rate at $350.

The Court will award one half hour as to each motion.

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 against Defendants as follows:

• $1640 as to Defendant Bruce Allen Wickware due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiff shall give notice.
• $1640 as to Defendant Rust & Sons Trucking, Inc, due no later than 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:                Asman, Bruce E. et al vs. Ponce, Cipriano et al

Case No.:   VCU313509

Date:           October 29, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Continued Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and consolidate Case Nos.  VCU313509 and VCU332655.  It appears defendant Lisitsyn has been short served with notice of the within motion.  Although an Opposition has been filed and considered, this defendant may request oral argument to request additional time to file a supplemental opposition to plaintiff’s motion.

Facts and Analysis

The Court, at the prior hearings, noted its inclination to grant the motion to consolidate this matter and VCU332655 upon compliance with the procedural requirements under California Rule of Court, rule 3.350.

The Court notes that the required documents have been filed in both cases, with the notice of this motion having been filed in VCU332655 on October 15, 2026.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and consolidates these matters for all purposes.

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:              Asman, Bruce E vs. Lisitsyn, Maxim Leo

Case No.:   VCU332655

Date:           October 29, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Ruling: The Court notes that it has consolidated this matter with VCU313509. It appears defendant Lisitsyn has been short served with notice of the within motion.  Although an Opposition has been filed and considered, this defendant may request oral argument to request additional time to file a supplemental opposition to plaintiff’s motion.

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:              Terrell, Lucinda vs. Ferreira Construction Company, Inc.

Case No.:     PCU334768

Date:           October 29, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:       (1) Plaintiff’s Ex Parte for OST re: Motion to Compel Supplemental Deposition of Defendant FPW’s PMQ; (2) Defendant’s Ex Parte for OST re: Protective order re: Supplemental Deposition of FPW’s PMQ.

Tentative Ruling: (1) and (2) To grant the motions and set the hearings for November 10, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 19; to make no other orders as to discovery at this time.

Facts and Analysis Common to (1) and (2)

At issue is the further deposition of Defendant FPW’s PMQ.

Plaintiff deposed Defendant’s PMQ on October 20, 2026. Defendant FPW designated Michael Baeza. However, Plaintiff contends that Baeza did not sufficiently answer questions related to the Tenna system.

The Tenna system appears to relate to distracted-driving alerts on the Subject Vehicle.

As such, at the conclusion of the deposition, Plaintiff served a supplemental notice of deposition as to FPW’s PMQ as to the Tenna system, including 20 document requests related thereto. That deposition was set for November 3, 2026.

However, Plaintiff notes FPW by letter on October 26, 2026, stated no witness would be produced for the supplemental deposition and FPW would move for a protective order.

Defendant has filed its protective order, but it is set for December 1, 2026.

Plaintiff notes that the earliest motion date available was November 16, 2026, which is after discovery cut off.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1202 provides the requirements for an ex parte application as to showing required:

“(c) Affirmative factual showing required

An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.”

Here, both Plaintiff and Defendant FPW have demonstrated the requisite good cause given the discovery cut off date, the available hearing dates and this issue arose October 20, 2026.

As such, the Court grants the motions and shortens time to hear these motions to November 10, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 19. The Court makes no other rulings as to the remainder of the requested relief.

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 October 28, 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
VPR054324	In the Matter of Alston, Adrienne Serpa	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054316	In the Matter of Fite, Dion Elmer	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
VPR054312	In the Matter of Magana, Alberto Zaragoza	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
VPR053689	In the Matter of Handley, James Alan II	Final Distribution Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR050404	In the Matter of Shay Rice Revocable Trust	Accounting Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR054327	In the Matter of Jones, Sue B.	Petition Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR054326	In the Matter of the Stephen E. Baker Sr. and Sharon A. Baker Revocable Living Trust	Petition to Determine Trust Asset	Appearance Required	Petition, Exhibit B: attached copy of the will is dated February 14, 2017, rather than the referenced date of October 22, 1998
VPR054073	In the Matter of the Walter Colson and Mary Colson 1990 Trust	Instruction Hearing	Appearance Required	Petition omitted the names and addresses of each person entitled to notice of the petition, Prob C § 1720. Notice of the continued hearing is not filed, Prob C § 17203
VPR051335	In the Matter of Donald Eugene Willis and Gretta Joan Willis 2009 Living Trust	Petition Hearing	Appearance Required	Objection filed
VPR050199	In the Matter of Boykin, Thelma	Review Hearing	Appearance Required	Proof of Bond has not been filed
VPR052421	In the Matter of Rhodes, Patricia Ann	Hearing: Other	Appearance Required	Status Report submitted to the court

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
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR054351	In the Matter of S.M.V.A.	Father’s name on the Birth Certificate is not the same name that is presented in form GC-210(CA) Declaration of Due Diligence has not been filed for Father. No requests was made to waive notice to the maternal grandparents. Order Appointing Guardian and Letters of Guardianship have not been lodged with the court. Required to be completed - Attendance of Guardianship Orientation and Declaration of Attendance needs to be filed DOJ Background record check appears to be outstanding Pursuant to Ca rule of Ct. Rule 7.1020(c) - Notice of a hearing of a request for findings under this rule, and a copy of the request, must be sent to the minor's parents and the persons listed in section 1460(b) of the Probate Code, in the manner and within the time provided in that section, subject to the provisions of subdivision (e) of that section and sections 1202 and 1460.1 of that code. Order for findings has not been lodged with the court
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 01	VPR054098	In the Matter of K.S.	No issues to address
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR054014	In the Matter of R.V.	All minors need to have their own separate LETTERS lodged with the court NEED Notice of Hearing (GC-020) to be filed with proof of service indicating Petition for Appointment was served pursuant to Probate Code §1511(a-i) for notice of this hearing the appointment of guardianship of the person. Declarations of Due Diligence have not been filed for parents. Orders dispensing with notice for the general appointment hearing have not been lodged for this 10/29/26 hearing Each Proposed Guardians to file the Declaration of Attendance of Guardianship Orientation in this case
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 19	PPR053989	In the Matter of M.M.	DOJ Background record check appears to be outstanding
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 01	VPR052765	In the Matter of B.S.	The Notice of Hearing and Petition for Termination must be served by mail pursuant to §1215 on all relatives identified in §1511. NOT LODGED- Order Terminating Guardianship
10/29/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR048472	In the Matter of D.P.	OSC Hearing