Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a Visalia probate matter listed below you may contact the Visalia Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #2342. For further information regarding a SCJC probate matter listed below you may contact the SCJC Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Monday, November 17, 2025, are:
Re: Munoz, Kaddish vs. C.H.L. EMS, Inc.
Case No.: VCU309413
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Tentative Ruling: To continue the motion to December 15, 2025, 8:30 am, Dept. 7; to order a supplemental declaration as to information to calculate the lodestar and the presently incurred costs.
1. Sufficiency of Amount of Settlement (Net Estimated: $100,116.67)
The gross settlement amount is $250,000. Plaintiff estimates approximately 322 proposed Class Members, providing an estimated average payout of $310.92 per member.
The class members consisted of all current and former non-exempt California employees of Defendant who worked for Defendant during March 22, 2023 until August 13, 2025.
Plaintiff primarily alleged the following violations:
(1) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 558;
(2) failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 558;
(3) failure to pay all wages in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1194.2;
(4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions in violation of Labor Code sections 226(a), (e), 1174(d);
(5) failure to timely pay wages due at termination in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203;
(6) failure to timely pay employees in violation of Labor Code section 204(a), (b);
(7) failure to reimburse for business expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802;
(8) failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked, in violation of Labor Code sections 210, 218;
(9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200;
(10) penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); and
(11) failure to produce personnel file and employment records in violation of Labor Code sections 226(b), (c), and 1198.5.
Plaintiff provide 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 Otkupman ¶38.) The total estimated maximum potential recovery in the event of an outright victory is $787,729.45. Therefore, the gross settlement amount of $250,000 represents approximately 32% of the maximum recovery. (Declaration of Otkupman ¶38.) 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 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 $250,000 are proposed as follows:
|
Proposed Attorneys’ Fees (33.3%): |
$83,333.33 |
|
Proposed Attorney Costs (up to): |
$25,000.00 |
|
Proposed Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff : |
$10,000.00 |
|
Proposed Settlement Administrator Costs |
$6,550.00 |
|
Proposed PAGA Payment |
$25,000.00 |
|
Proposed Net Settlement Amount |
$100,116.67 |
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 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 Kaddish Munoz as Class Representative for settlement purposes. The proposed enhancement award to Plaintiff is $10,000.
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.4th 785, 806.)
The Court’s review of the declaration of Plaintiff indicates justification for the $5,000 award, but no amount higher. The Court finds that Plaintiff engaged in typical participation in discovery and resolution of this matter and the award of $5,000 adequately compensates Plaintiff for this participation.
The Court, therefore, will approve the enhancement award of $5,000.
Attorneys’ fees of 33 1/3% of the gross settlement fund of $250,000 or $83,333.33 and costs not to exceed $25,000 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 $25,000 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 IYLM Group 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 estimate submitted by IYLM attached to the declaration of counsel. The Court preliminarily approves administration costs not to exceed $6,650.
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.
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 Otkupman ¶39– Exhibit E.)
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 322 employees have been identified through Defendants’ 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 the motion to December 15, 2025, 8:30 am, Dept. 7 and orders a supplemental declaration as to information to calculate the lodestar and the 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: Torres, Bersabed vs. Ventura Coastal, LLC
Case No.: VCU319885
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Continued Motion to Consolidate
Tentative Ruling: The Court has signed the proposed order consolidating this matter and Case No. VCU324072.
Facts
At the prior hearing, the Court found the substantive elements of consolidation met, but required the filing of the proposed order for this motion in Case No. VCU324072 (the “PAGA Action”) in compliance with Rule of Court, rule 3.350(c).
On November 3, 2025, the proposed order was filed in the PAGA Action
On November 4, 2025, the Court signed the order consolidating these matters.
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: Espinosa Mendoza, Javier Martin vs. Weldcraft Industries, Inc
Case No.: VCU312171
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Motion for Continuance of Trial
Tentative Ruling: The Court does not issue tentative rulings on these matters. 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.
Re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Martinez, Jorge L
Case No.: VCL317035
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted
Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 9 admitted.
Facts
On or about March 21, 2025, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to Defendant’s counsel.
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 9 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 9 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.
Re: 2022 Dhillon Family Trust vs. Dampier Electric, Inc.
Case No.: VCU324065
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Continued Petition Hearing
Tentative Ruling: To grant the petition
Facts
At the prior hearings on September 8, 2025 and October 13, 2025, the Court raised the issue of service and subsequent filing of a proof of service of the petition.
The Court’s file reflects a proof of service by mail with return receipt requested and that such mailing occurred on July 11, 2025.
Civil Code section 8486, subdivision (b) requires service of the petition and notice of hearing to "be made in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested . . . ." (Civ. Code, § 8486, subd. (b).)
As to the merits of the petition, Petitioner seeks to release real property located at 9736 Avenue 276, Visalia, California 93277 from a mechanic’s lien placed by Respondent Dampier Electric, Inc. recorded on March 4, 2025 in the amount of $67,105.95.
The petition notes no action to enforce the lien was filed within 90 days of recordation under Civil Code section 8460.
On June 25, 2025, Petitioner’s project matter sent a letter demanding removal of the lien.
No opposition appears to have been filed.
Authority and Analysis
Civil Code section 8480(a) and (b), entitled “Rights of owner of property or owner of any interest in property; Other cause of actions or claims; Petition for release; Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure” states:
“(a) The owner of property or the owner of any interest in property subject to a claim of lien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien if the claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in Section 8460.
(b) This article does not bar any other cause of action or claim for relief by the owner of the property. A release order does not bar any other cause of action or claim for relief by the claimant, other than an action to enforce the claim of lien that is the subject of the release order.”
The time limitation set forth in subsection (a) via reference to section 8460 requires the action by claimant commenced “within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien.”
The court in RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 423 notes the following:
“Claimants enforce their mechanic's liens through foreclosure, and must commence a foreclosure suit within 90 days after recording the lien. (§ 8460, subd. (a).) If a claimant does not timely commence foreclosure proceedings, an owner may file a petition to release the property from the lien. (§ 8480, subd. (a).) Likewise, if foreclosure proceedings are timely commenced, an owner who challenges the validity of the lien may file a motion to remove a mechanic's lien in the pending foreclosure action itself…”
Here, Petitioners, via the verified petition, state no foreclosure on the lien action has been filed. Absent evidence otherwise as to a timely filed foreclosure suit by Respondents, the Court grants the petition to expunge the lien.
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: Wolf, Sterling vs. College of the Sequoias
Case No.: VCU324539
Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 7-The Honorable Russell P. Burke
Motion: Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition
Tentative Ruling: To find this motion moot by the stipulation of the parties as to the filing of the first amended petition. The Court will sign the proposed order, but the first amended petition must be separately filed.
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.