Ellen Hibberts Vs. Emergencymd Associates Llc , Defendant, Et Al

RG19035921: Levy VS ABC Landscaping & Excavation, Inc. 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Derrick Levy (Plaintiff) + in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Michael Markman The Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Derrick Levy, Ruben Caraballo, Elmel Rodriguez, Gary Dillow on 07/01/2024 is Granted. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16061942036 Meeting ID: 160 6194 2036 --- One tap mobile +16692545252,,16061942036# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16061942036# US (US Spanish Line) Parties to appear. Subject to any consideration of any objections raised at the hearing, the court will grant the motion for final approval. BACKGROUND FACTS This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. The parties agreed to settle the claims for a gross settlement amount of $2,100,000.00. The parties seek final approval of the settlement, approving $700,000.00 in attorney’s fees; $45,802.02 in litigation costs; a service payment of $10,000.00 to each of the four class representatives; settlement administration costs of 15,000.00, and $50,000.00 in PAGA civil penalties (75% of penalties to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% to aggrieved employees). The remaining amount is to be distributed among participating class members in proportion to the number of weeks worked during the period. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 19, 2023. LEGAL STANDARD To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) A court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) A “‘presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s- length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG19035921: Levy VS ABC Landscaping & Excavation, Inc. 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Derrick Levy (Plaintiff) + in Department 23 Similarly, a “trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action analysis, “including the strength of the plaintiff's case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount”].) DISCUSSION In this case, the parties mediated and reached settlement after arm’s length negotiations, counsel conducted sufficient investigation and discovery to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, counsel cite significant experience in litigating class actions, and the settlement administrator received no objections in response to the class notice. (See Yoon Decl., ¶¶ 5–7; 11–13, 3; Cleaver Decl., ¶¶ 4–5; De Sario Decl., ¶¶ 10–12.) The motion is unopposed. ORDER Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The court will enter the proposed judgment. A final compliance hearing is set for October 8, 2024 at 10:00 am in Department 23. Plaintiff is ordered to file a final report and declaration regarding distribution at least five (5) court days before the compliance hearing. Class counsel shall hold 10% of the attorneys’ fees award in an interest-bearing account until the completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting. No appearances will be required if the report and declaration establish that the distributions are complete. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG19035921: Levy VS ABC Landscaping & Excavation, Inc. 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Derrick Levy (Plaintiff) + in Department 23 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

The court upon its own motion continues hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Relief From Dismissal to Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 9:00am. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Monday, July 22, 2024, line 5, DEFENDANT DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA'S Motion To Compel Enforcement Of Records Subpoena And Request For Sanctions Against Plaintiff And Plaintiffs Counsel Pro Tem Judge David McDonald, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Motion granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff agreed to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, except for the emergency contact information. Defendants have a right to confirm that all documents have been produced by Kaiser. Plaintiff shall execute an authorization to Kaiser allowing production absent the emergency contact information. Sanctions of $950 imposed against Plaintiff. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to davididaho14@gmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/JPT)

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT FOR SALAZAR VS REAL TIME OTHER EMPLOYMENT (OVER CVRI2305824 STAFFING SERVICES, LLC $25,000) OF MICHELLE SALAZAR BY REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC Tentative Ruling: Grant request for judicial notice. Grant motion for judgment on the pleadings. Moving party to prepare an order and judgment of dismissal—the proposed order presented July 1 does not address the motion.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY WESOLEK VS MARTHA’S APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION CVRI2204171 VILLAGE AND KITCHEN, INC. SETTLEMENT BY HEATHER RAE WESOLEK Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, appearances requested.

23CV02538 HARMON v. NELSON et al. (UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANTS THE ROMERO INSTITUTE AND SARA NELSON’S MOTION TO APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SEAL DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE The unopposed motion is granted. On 5/20/24, defendants erroneously filed their Offer to Compromise. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), the court finds that there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right to public access to the record, that overriding interest supports sealing the record, a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Please use Case Management Search for Tentative Ruling(s).

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 24, 2024, Line 8. 2 - PLAINTIFF TALIA KENNEDY's Partially Renewed Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff'S Request For Production Of Documents (Set One) To Meta Platforms, Inc. And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $5,760.00 Against Said Defendant And Its Counsel, Jointly And Severally. Contined to July 29, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/RBU)