Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, May 21, 2026, are:

Re:                C S vs. DOE 1

Case No.:   VCU293358

Date:           May 21, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Defendant County’s Motion to Tax Costs

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion in part and award $3,651.98 in costs. Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.

Facts

Following the remittitur issued January 29, 2026, Plaintiff, on March 5, 2026, filed a memorandum of costs seeking the following:

Cost	Amount	Challenge by Defendant?
1. Filing fees	$775.00	Yes
2. Preparation of the original and copies of clerk’s transcript or appendix	$934.00	No
6. Transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs and other papers	$852.70	Yes
9. Other: Counsel Press	$3,078.28	Yes
Total	$5,639.98

On March 20, 2026, Defendant filed an amended motion to tax or strike costs as indicated above.

Authority and Analysis

California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (a)(1) states, “Except as provided in this rule or by statute, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal.” California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (a)(5) states, “In the interest of justice, the Court of Appeal may also award or deny costs as it deems proper.”

Here, Plaintiff the prevailing party in the Court of Appeal’s decision and the Court of Appeal expressly awarded costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (a)(5): “Costs on appeal are awarded to plaintiff and appellant S.C.”

Recoverable Costs

"[A]ppellate costs and fees are recovered under section 1034, subdivision (b) and [California Rules of Court,] rules 3.1702(c) and 8.278.” (Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 683, 686.)

Section 1034 states "Prejudgment costs allowable under this chapter shall be claimed and contested in accordance with rules adopted by the Judicial Council."

California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(A)-(G) states,

(1) A party may recover only the following costs, if reasonable:

(A) Filing fees;

(B) The amount the party paid for any portion of the record, whether an original or a copy or both. The cost to copy parts of a prior record under rule 8.147(b)(2) is not recoverable unless the Court of Appeal ordered the copying;

(C) The cost to produce additional evidence on appeal;

(D) The costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers;

(E) The cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply;

(F) The cost to procure a surety bond, including the premium, the cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral, and the fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to provide security for the bond or to obtain a letter of credit, unless the trial court determines the bond was unnecessary; and

(G) The fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to deposit with the superior court in lieu of a bond or undertaking, unless the trial court determines the deposit was unnecessary.

If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)  On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.  (Id.)  Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  (Id.)   

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.] However, ‘[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].’ [Citations.]”  (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

A party contesting costs must state why the contested item is objectionable. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b)(2)). Factual recitals rather than mere conclusions are required. Conclusory allegations that the item was “neither necessary nor reasonable” do not satisfy the objecting party’s burden. (County of Ker v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal_App.3d 1107, 1113-1114; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266).

“[W]hen the correctness of the memorandum is challenged, either in whole or in part, by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then upon the party claiming the costs to show by competent and satisfactory evidence that the items charged as costs were for matters and things necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.” (Whitaker v. Moran (1914) 23 Cal.App. 758, 761 cited by Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal. App. 2d 678, 699.)

Category No. 1. Filing fees

Plaintiff claims a filing fee cost of $775.00 and supports this cost with a email receipt from the Court of Appeals where the amount is $775.00 The email attached is partially redacted.

Defendant moves to tax this cost claiming there is no way of knowing what the charge was for due to the redaction.

However, a review of the Court of Appeals website under fees demonstrates that the filing of a Notice or Motion for Appeal-Civil is $775.00.

Consequently, the motion to tax this cost is denied. This cost is expressly provided for by California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(A).

Category No. 6. Transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs and other papers

Plaintiff claims $852.70 in costs for transmitting, filing, and serving record, briefs, and other papers. Plaintiff submits documentation to support $789.70. The Court notes this appears to amount to a $63.00 discrepancy.

Defendant challenges the fees for the filings costs regarding the amended oral argument questionnaire (dated 8-14-25),  authorization (dated 5-16-25), notice of substitution of attorney (dated 12-16-25), notice of substitution of attorney (dated 10-13-25) Letter to appellate court regarding attorney coverage dated 11-14-24) and an extension to file. The costs associated with these filings amount to $63.00.

Plaintiff notes, and the Court agrees, that these filing costs allowed under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(D). The Court will not tax these costs.

Defendant also seeks to tax the Nationwide Legal, LLC claimed costs for receipts dated June 25, 2024 in the amount of $215, receipt dated June 22, 2024, in the amount of $44.95, and receipt dated May 28, 2025, in the amount of $16.45. The total of the challenged amount is $276.40.

Again, these costs appear proper as to the costs associated with filing documents necessary to effectuate the appeal, as permitted under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(D).

As noted above, however, the Court finds a $63 discrepancy and therefore will tax this category in the amount of $63.

Category No. 9. Other

Defendants seek to strike this entire category as lacking express authorization for recovery under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(A)-(D). In the alternative, they specifically move to tax $2,994.97 of the $3,078.28.

Plaintiff, in opposition, categorizes each of the claimed costs as recoverable pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(C) as costs to produce additional evidence on appeal and/or (D) as costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately substantiated that these costs, though categorized as other, are recoverable under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, except as to the “preparation of brief” and “answer to petition for review” costs appearing as the first line item as to each of the Counsel Press invoices. In the Court’s view, these appear to be non-recoverable costs that are attorneys’ fees for authoring the briefs, as opposed to formatting mere costs. As such, the Court will strike $750 from the January 15, 2025 invoice, $550 from the December 15, 2025 invoice and $625 from the May 28, 2025 invoice, for a total of $1,925.

The Court finds that the remainder of the costs on these invoices properly recoverable under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subds. (1)(d)(1)(C) and(1)(d)(1)(D), and are otherwise commercially reasonable and routine.

Summary

Therefore, the Court awards the costs as follows:

Cost	Initial Amount	Amount Awarded
1. Filing and Motion Fees	$775.00	$775.00
2. Preparation of the original and copies of clerk’s transcript or appendix	$934.00	$934.00
6. Transmitting, filing, and serving of record , briefs, and other papers	$852.70	789.70
9. Other: Counsel Press	$3,078.28	$1,153.28
Total	$5,639.98	$3,651.98

If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.

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. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:              Clubb, Mykayla vs. Orchard Square 79, LLC

Case No.:     VCU320817

Date:           May 21, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Plaintiff Mykala Clubb’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to (1) Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC; (2) Defendant Daniel Bailey; and (3) Defendant Marlene Bailey; Plaintiff Giovanni Nunez’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to (4) Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC; (5) Defendant Daniel Bailey; and (6) Defendant Marlene Bailey; and for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling:

(1) through (6): To grant the motions and order responses due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Plaintiffs shall give notice; to issues sanctions as follows:

• $470 against Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
• $470 against Defendant Daniel Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
• $470 against Defendant Marlene Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling.

Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.

Facts Common to (1) through (6)

In this habitability and negligence matter, Plaintiffs Clubb and Nunez sue Defendants Orchard Square 79, LLC, Daniel Bailey and Marlene Bailey.

The Court notes Daniel and Marlene represent themselves at this point in the case.

A motion to withdraw as counsel as to Orchard Square 79, LLC is set for May 28, 2026, 8:30 am, D1.

Relevant here, Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for production of documents on August 22, 2025.

As of the date of the filing of these motions, no responses have been received. Plaintiffs seek to compel initial responses and sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per motion.

In opposition, Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC states that responsive documents were sent December 1, 2025, but notes that no client verification with respect to a response to requests for production has been provided. As such, the Court does not find the motion to compel responses moot. The responses remain unverified. Production of the documents themselves does not satisfy the discovery requirements.

Authority and Analysis

(1) through (6) – Requests for Production

The general rule is that unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Based on Defendants’ failures to respond to the first sets of requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Defendants provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiffs’ first sets of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiffs shall give notice.

Sanctions

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will impose total sanctions as follows:

• $470 against Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
• $470 against Defendant Daniel Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
• $470 against Defendant Marlene Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.

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. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:               Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing

Case No.:   VCU314801

Date:           May 21, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion as indicted herein and preliminarily approve the settlement, as modified herein; to set the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.  Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.

Background Facts

At the prior hearing, the Court continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to calculating the lodestar, information regarding the presently incurred costs of counsel and the amount of the administrative costs.

On May 15, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration addressing these issues.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees and costs no greater than of 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $650,000 or $216,666.67 are sought in this matter.

Counsel has utilized the percentage of common fund methodology as well as provided adequate lodestar information to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request.

Here, counsel indicate the firm has spent 121.7 hours at rates ranging from $1,227 to $277, resulting in a base lodestar of $106,125.90.  (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson ¶2.)

The Court notes that these rates are already higher than what is typically “…prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The Court, therefore, adjusts the hourly rates as follows:

Name	Stated Hourly Rate	Approved Hourly Rate	Hours	Total
Gary M. Klinger	$1,019	$800	16.8	$13,440
David K. Lietz	$1,227	$900	2.6	$2,340
John J. Nelson	$902	$700	61.2	$42,840
Dean Meyer	$581	$400	4.2	$1,680
Mariya Weekes	$1,019	$800	4	$3,200
CJ Cuneo	$1,019	$800	20.2	$16,160
Michelle Benvenuto	$277	$150	4	$600
Sandra Passanisi	$277	$150	3.9	$585
Kendal McLaughlin	$277	$150	2.9	$435
Amanda Mkmanga	$277	$150	.1	$15
Ashley Tyrrell	$277	$150	1.1	$165
Heather Sheflin	$277	$150	.7	$105
Adjusted Base Lodestar:	$81,565

To award $216,666.67 in attorneys’ fees, therefore, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 2.65

The Court typically permits a maximum lodestar multiple of 1.5 in these cases.

The Court has reviewed the declarations of counsel in support of what is now an additional 1.15 multiplier, but, in its discretion, rules that the additional .5 awarded adequately takes into account the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented. (See In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1052 quoting Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833) Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, the Court has an independent responsibility to review the attorney fee provision of the settlement agreement and award an amount that it determines to be reasonable. (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.)

Therefore, the Court will preliminarily approve $122,347.50, equal to 1.5 times the current lodestar.

Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of  $2,028.38 (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson ¶2.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $5,000.00.

Claims Administrator

The Court preliminary approves EisnerAmper as the claims administrator for this class action. The supplemental declaration of Nelson indicates estimated administrative costs of $49,927.23. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson ¶3.)

Claim Form

As counsel notes in the supplemental declaration, a claim form is required to obtain a portion of the settlement fund. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson ¶4.)

Summary

Therefore, Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $650,000 are preliminarily approved as follows:

Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (1.5 Lodestar):	$122,347.50
Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to):	$5,000.00
Preliminarily Approved Payment to Plaintiff:	$1,500.00
Preliminarily Approved Administrator Costs	$ 49,927.23
Preliminarily Approved Settlement Amount	$471,225.27

Therefore, the Court preliminarily approves the settlement as indicated herein. The Court sets the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.

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. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 and Honorable David C. Mathias Presiding- Department 1

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Wednesday, May 20, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
VPR054025	In the Matter of Mora, Syliva	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	1. Notice of Petition to Administer not filed, Prob C § 1220 2. Proof of Publication not filed, Prob C § 8121 3. Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number not filed (DE-147S), TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4) 4. Petition Item 3e(3): Waivers of Bond not attached 5. Petition Item 5a (3) or (4): regarding any surviving registered domestic partner omitted
VPR054003	In the Matter of Shimaji, Mark Haruo	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number not filed (DE-147S), TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4) Petition Item 8: Relationships to decedent of some parties are omitted
VPR054031	In the Matter of Albaugh, Carol	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Petition Item 8c: DE-300 not attached as required in Probate C § 13152(e) Petition Item 9a (3) or (4): regarding any surviving registered domestic partner
VPR054024	In the Matter of the Merle Leon Huffman Living Trust dated August 14, 1996	Appoint Successor Trustee	Approval Conditional	Proposed order to be submitted for review
VPR054016	In the Matter of Tom De Jong and Alice De Jong 2001 Trust	Instruction Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR053405	In the Matter of Whitson, Bobby Joe	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order An award of extraordinary compensation to the attorney is within the discretion of the court, CRC, rule 7.703(a)
VPR053617	In the Matter of Saxton, Jo Ann	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Creditor’s Claim filed by Wells Fargo Bank, the personal representative must allow or reject in whole or in part the claim in writing and file and serve a copy of the Allowance or Rejection, CRC rule 7.401
VPR044711	In the Matter of Amanda Allen Special Needs Trust	Accounting Hearing	Recommended for Approval
VPR053097	In the Matter of the Fred Ramirez 2024 Revocable Trust	Attorney Fee Allowance Hearing	Appearance required	Proposed order to be submitted for review
VPR054061	In the Matter of Rodriguez Ramos, J. Niebes	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Notice of Hearing not served on proposed conservatee
VPR053435	In the Matter of The Linder Corporate Exempt Trust and Linder Corporate Non-Exempt Trust	Instruction Hearing	Appearance required	Documents in order Settlement agreement lodged

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Thursday, May 21, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR054038	In the Matter of Turnbough, Jerrilee Ann	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
PPR054033	In the Matter of Frazier, Joan	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Petition Incomplete: Caption not selected – Authorization to Administer under the IAEA (full authority requested). Item 6(b) – No selection made, but issues of deceased parents are listed in 8. Item 8 – Age of siblings, and need notion if there is no issue of deceased siblings.
PPR053952	In the Matter of Havekost, Kathleen Louise	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number incomplete, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4). Proof of Publication not filed.
PPR054049	In the Matter of Akin, Samie Jane	Petition Hearing	Appearance Required	Incomplete/untimely notice: A 30-day notice of hearing is required pursuant Probate Code §851(a)