December 20, 2024

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-001979 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MEDEIROS, CONNIE L – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under CCP 664.6 and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation – GRANTED, and unopposed.

After review of the moving papers and evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation for Judgment entered into between the parties and the Court’s order retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement herein. Therefore, the dismissal order shall be set aside and judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for the net amount of $3,096.00, calculated as follows: 

Principal amount $5,540.23 plus court costs $300; less credit for payments made in the amount of $2,744.23.

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-007186 – THOMAS, JUSIAH vs WEBER, ROBERT – Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED, and unopposed.

 

The unopposed motion by Attorney Samuel Choo of Countrywide Trial Lawyers, APLC, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jusiah Thomas, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Iris Shawntel Granberry, is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client.

The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted concurrently with the motion.

CV-24-006176 – ALLEN, DREW vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Two – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Timeliness

The Court does not understand why Plaintiffs did not simply request to have their June 28, 2024 motion placed on calendar after the case transfer. But a cursory comparison of the motion filed on November 20, 2024, and the original motion indicates that this motion is the same as the initial motion, aside from the hearing particulars. The alternative would be for the Court to strike this motion but return the June 28, 2024 motion to calendar; it seems that the Court and the parties would wind up in the same substantive place at the end, except with added time and expense. Consequently, the Court accepts this motion as timely.

Scope of Discovery

Effective January 1, 2025, a defendant in a Song-Beverly warranty case must automatically turn over the following documents within 60 days of filing its answer and without waiting for a discovery request:

(1) Copy of or access to a version of the owner's manual for a motor vehicle of the same make, model, and year.

(2) Any warranties issued in conjunction with the sale of the motor vehicle.

(3) Sample brochures published for the motor vehicle.

(4) The motor vehicle's original invoice, if any, to the selling dealer.

(5) Sales or lease agreement, if the manufacturer is in possession.

(6) Motor vehicle information reports, including build documentation, component information, and delivery details.

(7) Entire warranty transaction history for the motor vehicle.

(8) Listing of required field actions applicable to the motor vehicle.

(9) Published technical service bulletins (”TSBs”) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.

(10) Published information service bulletins (“ISBs”) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.

(11) Records relating to communications between the manufacturer or dealership and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle, including those related to repair orders or claims involving the motor vehicle.

(12) Warranty policies and procedure manuals.

(13) Service manuals reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.

(14) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, all call recordings of pre-suit communications with the consumer available at the time of service of the complaint.

(15) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, the manufacturer's written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims.

(16) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, any nonprivileged, prelitigation evaluation.

(17) Any warranty extensions or modifications issued by the manufacturer on the motor vehicle.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26(h) [eff. 1/1/25; emphases added].) Accordingly, to the extent Defendant has restricted its responses to Plaintiffs’ individual vehicle, that interpretation is too narrow. And although Defendant states that, in any case, it has no responsive documents, because the Court is not completely clear on how Defendant has interpreted “field technical reports,” the Court shall GRANT the motion in part out of an abundance of caution.

Plaintiffs’ discovery fails to provide a definition for the term “field technical reports.” The Court shall construe this phrase to mean documentation regarding required field actions, published technical service bulletins (TSBs), and published information service bulletins (ISBs) for the same make, model, and year as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Within 15 days, Defendant is ordered to serve Plaintiffs with amended discovery responses providing any documentation regarding required field actions, published TSBs, and published ISBs for the same make, model, and year as Plaintiffs’ vehicle that are reasonably related to the nonconformities Plaintiffs have alleged.

To the extent that the discovery requests at issue encompass more than the categories of documents set forth above, the motion is DENIED.

Monetary Sanctions

No sanctions were requested, so none are awarded.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-23-001433 – VALLE, RIGOBERTO vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-6-25	Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
1-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-7-25	Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
4-7-25	Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval, including declaration of settlement administrator regarding status of notice packets and responses.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-23-003465 – CASTILLO, MARIO vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-6-25	Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
1-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-7-25	Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
4-7-25	Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval, including declaration of settlement administrator regarding status of notice packets and responses.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-23-004653 – MARTINEZ, VICTORIA vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-6-25	Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
1-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-7-25	Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
4-7-25	Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval, including declaration of settlement administrator regarding status of notice packets and responses.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-23-007019 – ANDRES, REBECA BALBUENA vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-6-25	Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
1-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-7-25	Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
4-7-25	Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval, including declaration of settlement administrator regarding status of notice packets and responses.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

CV-24-000548 – SOHAL, MARTIN vs STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY – Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement – GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range or reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 

Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c).  The class counsel, class representatives, and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.

The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter:

1-6-25	Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator
1-21-25	Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members.
3-7-25	Deadline for submission of Opt-Out Notice, Objections, or dispute their share of the settlement proceeds
4-7-25	Deadline for counsel to file motion for order of final approval, including declaration of settlement administrator regarding status of notice packets and responses.

A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23 of this Court.  The Class Notice and proposed order shall be revised to reflect the information reflected herein, including the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-23-005612 – ROHRER, KATHRYN vs OAK VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT – Final Fairness Hearing – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, as follows:

Having considered the unopposed motion for final approval and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds the near unanimous rate of participation by class members to be a strong factor in approving this settlement and that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law.  (Civil Code §1781; Code Civ. Proc. §382; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769.)  Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court is inclined to find that the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as set forth in the motion and supporting papers, subject to clarification as to the class representative payments as follows:

Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $257,701.80

Payment to Class Representative: $5,000.00 ($2,500 each)

Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees: $500,000.00

Class Counsel’s costs: $11,148.68

In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §384, the Court intends to set a compliance hearing for Friday May 30, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement.  Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members and the amount to be distributed to the cy-pres recipient.

In addition, the Court orders that notice of the Court’s order granting final approval and judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website for a period of at least 90 days.  (Civ. Code §1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b)).

CV-23-007383 – LORENZEN, ROMAN vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidence, Issue, Terminating, and/or Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,750.00 – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that Defendant, notwithstanding the Court’s order of November 21, 2024 has still failed to comply with  the Court’s order of May 16, 2024 requiring Defendant to” produce its Person Most Qualified for deposition per Plaintiff’s said deposition notice on the aforesaid categories and requests within sixty (60) days of this ruling on a mutually agreeable date and time” pursuant to Code of Civil Proc. §2031.310(b)(1).

The Court finds that Defendant’s said conduct constitutes misuse of the discovery process that warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions. ((Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 (g) and 2023.030 (a)).

The Court also finds that Defendant’s said misuse of the discovery process warrants the imposition of evidence sanctions. Particularly as the Court notified Defendants that failure to hold said deposition as ordered by the Court would result in the imposition of “more consequential sanctions.” (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.030 (c); (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.  (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, review filed, review denied; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999), 75 Cal.App.4th 48, Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App. 5^th 57, rehearing denied, review denied). 

The Court also notes Defendant’s Counsel’s failure to contribute to the joint statement ordered by the Court.

Accordingly monetary sanctions of $1200 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonably incurred attorney fees in bringing this motion. Furthermore, Defendant is hereby prevented from introducing any evidence that it has lemon law policies/procedures and is prevented from calling witnesses at trial to testify regarding its lemon law policies/procedures.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***