On May 29, 2020 a
Tentative Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
Miller, Delicia,
and
Does 2-100,
Melchoir, Luke,
Mojave Medical Services L.L.C.,
Pag Consulting, Llc,
for Employment-Other-Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Tentative Rulings for October 22, 2021
Department 8-26
Judge David Cohn
If allparties wish to submit on a tentative ruling, no appearance isrequired at the
hearing, unless specified otherwise in the tentative ruling. If allparties submit, please
notify the Judicial Assistant for Department 8-26
(909—521-3519) by 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. In that case, the tentative ruling posted on the Court’s website (or
emailed to the parties) will automatically become the final ruling of the court.
If you do not wish to submit on a tentative must appear for the
ruling, you hearing
via CourtCall or in-person. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argum ent.
The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the
court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling.
10. Miller v. PAG Consulting, LLC
CIVDS 2010908
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Tentative Ruling:
Grant subject to the provision of additional information.
Contrary to the statement in the notice of motion, no declaration by a settlement
administrator was submitted in connection with this motion. The declaration of John F.
Litwin, in the footer starting at page two, is erroneously styled as a declaration of Delicia
Miller. lt isunknown whether Ms. Delcia is the administrator’s representative. No such
declaration was submitted.
The gross settlement amount and all deductions thereto are reasonable and
appropriate. The settlement is fair for the class.
Nevertheless, to approve the settlement, the court requires additional information
that typically would be included in the administrator's declaration:
1. The total number of work-weeks for all class members collectively. (The
estimate provided at preliminary approval was 1022.47.) This figure wiII
enable to court to ascertain the amount each class member will receive for
each week worked during the class period.
Page 1 of 5
CVSZ6102221
2. The memorandum of points and authorities states that the average receipt by
class members will be $507.19. Given the deductions from the gross
settlement amount and the number of class members, the average receipt is
$517.22, not $507.19. Counsel should explain the discrepancy.
i /
12. Friends of Big Bea a'ylleyet al. v. County of . 'ernardino et al.
IVDS 2017298
Mo 'on to Di iss
Tentati g Rulino:
D '
led.
On April 13, 20 A ,
pursuant to a stipulation b e parties, the court approved a
b 'fing schedule a a 'I date of September
a t . Petitioners were to file an opening
'
brief by June 1, -sponde and Real Party re to file an oppositio -y
brief by June 16,
and Petitioner were to file a 'eply brief b ‘
ugust 6. Allthe b
'
s were filed later than
the séhed d dates: Petitioner filed t
‘
opening brief on 4 e 15, Respondent and
Re..1 P r
filed the opposition on ~
28, and Petition- Iled a Reply on August 9.
'
Nod -
standing the missed filin- o‘
-dlines by all Ies, the briefs were filed close
p
enough to the deadlines that actu filingda -
would not have presented any
difficulty forthe c-drt. Peti 'ners, how- er, . ed to lodge the fulladministratjve record
'
with the court. herefo '-,
on itsown mow'n, the court continued the t o October 6,
'
to allow petitio er to | ge the full ad Istrtive record. Petition- en lodged the full
administrativ rec 'o‘
on Septembe 8.
Repo dent and Real "
rty, however, moe to s smiss the petition on the ground
that petitioner failed to time v
lodge the administra e record in advance of the originally
scheduled trialdate of S otember 20.2
-
lmportantly, n parties have had t certified admi 'strative record sinc- n rch 5.
The briefs submi '-d for the trial on P -spondent
are o . ed that administ -tive record.
and Real Part demonstrate no pr' dice Petitioners’ failur.
by to ti
-
file the full
-
admini trati record. The tria n the merits would have occurr a on October 6, but for
this o'tio .
The cases reli- a on by Respondent and Real Prty are not on oint. They
involve situatio s w
ere the court was not provide ith the administrat e record,
resulting in a failure of proof by the peti ‘oners r trial. Here, the court ha the full record
in advance of the rescheduled trial, an th- ilure to lodge itin advance of e original
'
A11 dates are in 2021.
2
The court vacated the October 6 date to allow the motion to dismiss to be heard first.
trial
Page 2 of 5
CV526102221
Document Filed Date
October 22, 2021
Case Filing Date
May 29, 2020
Category
Employment-Other-Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Tentative Rulings for October 22, 2021 Department 8-26 Judge David Cohn If allparties wish to submit on a tentative ruling, no appearance isrequired at the hearing, unless specified otherwise in the tentative ruling. If allparties submit, please notify the Judicial Assistant for Department 8-26 (909—521-3519) by 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. In that case, the tentative ruling posted on the Court’s website (or emailed to the parties) will automatically become the final ruling of the court. If you do not wish to submit on a tentative must appear for the ruling, you hearing via CourtCall or in-person. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argum ent. The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling. 10. Miller v. PAG Consulting, LLC CIVDS 2010908 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Tentative Ruling: Grant subject to the provision of additional information. Contrary to the statement in the notice of motion, no declaration by a settlement administrator was submitted in connection with this motion. The declaration of John F. Litwin, in the footer starting at page two, is erroneously styled as a declaration of Delicia Miller. lt isunknown whether Ms. Delcia is the administrator’s representative. No such declaration was submitted. The gross settlement amount and all deductions thereto are reasonable and appropriate. The settlement is fair for the class. Nevertheless, to approve the settlement, the court requires additional information that typically would be included in the administrator's declaration: 1. The total number of work-weeks for all class members collectively. (The estimate provided at preliminary approval was 1022.47.) This figure wiII enable to court to ascertain the amount each class member will receive for each week worked during the class period. Page 1 of 5 CVSZ6102221 2. The memorandum of points and authorities states that the average receipt by class members will be $507.19. Given the deductions from the gross settlement amount and the number of class members, the average receipt is $517.22, not $507.19. Counsel should explain the discrepancy. i / 12. Friends of Big Bea a'ylleyet al. v. County of . 'ernardino et al. IVDS 2017298 Mo 'on to Di iss Tentati g Rulino: D ' led. On April 13, 20 A , pursuant to a stipulation b e parties, the court approved a b 'fing schedule a a 'I date of September a t . Petitioners were to file an opening ' brief by June 1, -sponde and Real Party re to file an oppositio -y brief by June 16, and Petitioner were to file a 'eply brief b ‘ ugust 6. Allthe b ' s were filed later than the séhed d dates: Petitioner filed t ‘ opening brief on 4 e 15, Respondent and Re..1 P r filed the opposition on ~ 28, and Petition- Iled a Reply on August 9. ' Nod - standing the missed filin- o‘ -dlines by all Ies, the briefs were filed close p enough to the deadlines that actu filingda - would not have presented any difficulty forthe c-drt. Peti 'ners, how- er, . ed to lodge the fulladministratjve record ' with the court. herefo '-, on itsown mow'n, the court continued the t o October 6, ' to allow petitio er to | ge the full ad Istrtive record. Petition- en lodged the full administrativ rec 'o‘ on Septembe 8. Repo dent and Real " rty, however, moe to s smiss the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to time v lodge the administra e record in advance of the originally scheduled trialdate of S otember 20.2 - lmportantly, n parties have had t certified admi 'strative record sinc- n rch 5. The briefs submi '-d for the trial on P -spondent are o . ed that administ -tive record. and Real Part demonstrate no pr' dice Petitioners’ failur. by to ti - file the full - admini trati record. The tria n the merits would have occurr a on October 6, but for this o'tio . The cases reli- a on by Respondent and Real Prty are not on oint. They involve situatio s w ere the court was not provide ith the administrat e record, resulting in a failure of proof by the peti ‘oners r trial. Here, the court ha the full record in advance of the rescheduled trial, an th- ilure to lodge itin advance of e original ' A11 dates are in 2021. 2 The court vacated the October 6 date to allow the motion to dismiss to be heard first. trial Page 2 of 5 CV526102221