(Subscribe to View)
December 5, 2018
Fresno County, CA
15 Unlimited - Other Employment
Scott Cusator (Plaintiff), represented by Shaun Setareh
Shared Imaging LLC (Defendant), represented by Linda M Moroney
Shared Imaging Inc. (Defendant), represented by Linda M Moroney
Jan 08, 2019
May 14, 2018
Apr 10, 2018
Jan 31, 2018
Jun 27, 2017
Apr 19, 2017
Thompson V. Veliz, Et Al.
Uptown Investments, Lp V. San Joaquin Chemicals, Inc.
Magdaleno V. J And V Properties, Inc./Lead Case
Notestine V. Mcdonald’S Corporation Et Al.
Lanotte V. Paintbrush, Llc, Et Al.
Rushing V. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
Magdaleno V. Torres, Et Al.
Lakisha Carmon V. Horizon Health And Subacute Ctr.
Salgado V. L&F Incorporated
Davtyan V. Tidwell
Motion: Amended Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384 Tentative Ruling: To set a hearing on January 10, 2019, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 503, as a hearing date for an Amended Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384. A verified report of payouts of settlement funds and a proposed amended judgment, containing the information discussed herein, shall be submitted no later than January 3, 2019. Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 384, subdivision (b) provides that the parties shall “report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class members.” This means accounting for checks actually cashed and those undelivered, as well as those and uncashed. (Cundiff v. Verizon California, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 718, 727.) The parties’ election to provide only the amount of uncashed checks does not satisfy the plain language of section 384. The Administrator shall provide a declaration stating the number and amount of checks mailed, the number of checks undelivered, any efforts to re-deliver those checks, and the number of checks remaining uncashed as of the date of the declaration. Furthermore, section 384 directs the court to “amend the judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid residue, plus interest on that sum at the legal rate of interest from the date of entry of the initial judgment, to nonprofit organizations . . . .” (Code Civ. Pro. § 384, subd. (b).) Any payment to the nonprofit organization in advance of the court’s directive is improper. Finally, no mention is made of the interest on the unpaid residue which is due to the nonprofit. Any proposed payment to the nonprofit must include this statutory interest. Any further declaration(s) shall explain the calculation of this interest. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Thompson V. Veliz, Et Al.
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.