Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, March 12, 2026, are:

Re:                 Sifuentes, Victor Alvardo vs. Swanson-Fahrney Ford (Selma)CA

Case No.:   VCU323494

Date:           March 12, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Defendants Fahrney Automotive Group, LLC dba Swanson-Fahrney Ford’s Motion to Dismiss

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion.

Facts and Analysis

On October 30, 2025, this Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend and provided ten (10) days to filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff has not, as of the date of the filing of this motion, filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to appear at the last two previous Case Management Conferences on November 12, 2025 and December 17, 2025. Plaintiff also failed to file a Case Management Statement.

On November 12, 2025 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel appeared on December 17, 2025 at the OSC.

Defendants, therefore, seek dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.410 and California Rule of Court, rule 3.1342.

However, the Cout finds Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f)(2) applicable here, stating:

          “(f) The court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant when:

(2) Except where Section 597 applies, after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.”

Here, a demurrer to the complaint was sustained with leave to amend, the Plaintiff failed to amend it within the time permitted and Defendants now move for dismissal, albeit under a different section and analysis.

The Court, therefore, grants the motion under section 581(f)(2).

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.

Re:                Salcido, Arturo Gamboa vs. Fernandez, Isidoro

Case No.:  VCU291125

Date:          March 12, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; the order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of proof of personal service of the order as indicated herein.

Facts

On January 27, 2026, Defendant’s Counsel Victor Perez filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Defendant Isidoro Fernandez. Defendant’s Counsel filed the following with respect to withdrawing:

(1) MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel;

(2) MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and

(3) MC-053 - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Additionally, Defendant’s Counsel has filed proof of service of these documents by electronic mail.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; [or] 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) requires that the “notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”

As noted above, counsel has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) by submitting the notice and motion on MC-051 and by directing the notice and motion to all parties.

California Rule of Court 3.1362 (c) further mandates that: “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). Specifically, the declaration that Rule 3.1362(c) requires must state that the moving attorney attempted to secure a “Substitution of Attorney” from the client as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) and that the client refused to so stipulate.

Here, the declaration is properly made on form MC-052, as well as a supplemental declaration attached to the Notice, and uses general terms without compromising confidentiality and indicates that Counsel has attempted to communicate with Defendant, but has been unable despite significant efforts.

Next, service under Rule 3.1362(d) requires personal service, electronic service, or mail and counsel’s declaration must note the service made. Here, service was by electronic mail on January 27, 2026. The declaration of counsel indicates unsuccessful efforts to confirm the address is current.

Finally, Rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed order be lodged with the Court on MC-053 with the moving papers, specifying all hearing dates scheduled, including date of trial. Defendant’s Counsel has complied with this requirement.

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as to Defendant. If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the order entitled “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil” that the moving party lodged with the Court.  This order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of a proof of personal service of the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to Defendant.

The Court further directs counsel to attach to the Order an additional notice of the date, time, and Department of this court for any future hearing dates for this case as calendared.

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.

Re:                In the Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC

Case No.:  VCU326682

Date:           March 12, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Petition to Approve Transfer of Structured Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To deny the petition

Facts

Initial Petition

Payee is 20 years old, single with no minor children. Payee is employed and declares income of $2,166.66-$3,250 per month.

In or about 2012, Payee became entitled to certain structured settlement payments resulting from a claim for damages arising in connection with a personal injury claim.

Payee’s annuity contract from Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska provides for the following payments:

• Commencing July 9, 2027, the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars and Zero Cents ($750.00) per month, increasing by 2.00% on July 9, 2028 and each July 9th thereafter, payable on the 9th day of each month, until June 9, 2035 (96 Certain Monthly Payments)

Additionally, certain deferred lump sums payable on the following basis:

• July 9, 2024 -  $8,000.00
• July 9, 2025 - $8,500.00
• July 9, 2026 - $9,000.00
• July 9, 2027 - $9,000.00
• July 9, 2030 - $25,000.00
• July 9, 2035 - $50,000.00
• July 9, 2040 - $198,000.00

Payee does not have any court ordered support payments. Payee indicates Payee is not likely to require future medical care and treatment for injuries sustained in connection with the settlement and that the settlement was not intended for such purposes, nor was intended to provide for necessary living expenses.

Via this petition, Payee seeks to transfer a total of $54,048.48 consisting of the following:

A) 1 payment of $9,000.00 on July 9, 2026

B) 1 payment of $9,000.00 on July 9, 2027

C) 96 monthly payments of $350.00 each, increasing at 2% annually, beginning on July 9, 2027 and ending on June 9, 2035.

In exchange, the petition provides a payment of $24,844.07, creating a discount rate of 24.99%.

The petition further states: “Payee is facing a hardship situation. Payee would like to enter into this transaction with the Petitioner and sell a portion of their underlying annuity payments so that they can have the financial means to pay off outstanding debts and pay day to day living expenses.” Payee’s declaration states “I will use the money received from the proposed settlement to payoff my car loan as well as get my own place of residence.” Petitioner filed additional documents indicating debt in the amount of $8,731 and an estimate of $1,500 per month in housing expenses.

Petitioner filed supplemental documents which provided the purchase contract for a portion of the annuity, the annuity contract and the general settlement agreement underlying the annuity.

Payee has been advised in writing to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived that advice in writing.

BHLN’s Response and Alternative Offer

On November 20, 2025, Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska (“BHLN”) filed a response to the amended petition, noting that, at that time, it failed to include the underlying settlement agreement and annuity contract. The Court notes that subsequent filings appear to have cured this issue.

Additionally, that the Petition fails to include Payee’s address under Insurance Code § 10139.5(c)(1).

Further, that Payee has waived the right to receive independent professional advice.

Finally, BHLN notes an alternative to the transfer petition via the BIFCO Hardship Exchange Program.

BIFCO will contract to purchase future payments at an annual discount rate of 6.5% plus a $1,000.00 administrative charge.

Applied here, if BIFCO were to contract to purchase from Payee for the same $54,048.48 in future payments, it would pay him approximately $41,300.00, using an effective rate of approximately 7.67%, resulting in Payee’s receipt of $16,500.00 more.

Alternatively, BIFCO could pay Payee the same $24,800.00 by purchasing a prorated share of the same payments, totaling approximately $33,000.00 (allowing him to retain more than $8,200.00 of the future payments to be paid when they come due.

BIFCO notes other options available as well.

Payee’s Amended Declaration and Errata to Petition

Payee further filed an amended declaration stating monthly expenses are typically around $200 per month for a motorcycle, an additional $200 a month for motorcycle insurance, $100 for a phone bill, and roughly $100 on food.

Payee is not currently receiving monthly payments from the annuity.

Payee further states he is experiencing financial hardship due to a motorcycle accident, and has medical bills and living expenses accruing as a result. Payee also intends to pay off the motorcycle loan.

Payee indicates “I am aware of Berkshire’s financial hardship program and I’m not interested in participating in it.”

Authority and Analysis

A transfer of structured settlement payment rights is not effective unless the transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based on the following express findings by the Court.

Under Ins. Code § 10139.5(a)(1), the Court must determine whether the “transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.” The Court considers the following non-exclusive factors under Ins. Code § 10139.5(b):

(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level.

(2) The stated purpose of the transfer.

(3) The payee’s financial and economic situation.

(4) The terms of the transaction, including whether the payee is transferring monthly or lump sum payments or all or a portion of his or her future payments.

(5) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to pay for the future medical care and treatment of the payee relating to injuries sustained by the payee in the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee still needs those future payments to pay for that future care and treatment.

(6) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to provide for the necessary living expenses of the payee and whether the payee still needs the future structured settlement payments to pay for future necessary living expenses.

(7) Whether the payee is, at the time of the proposed transfer, likely to require future medical care and treatment for the injuries that the payee sustained in connection with the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee lacks other resources, including insurance, sufficient to cover those future medical expenses.

(8) Whether the payee has other means of income or support, aside from the structured settlement payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer, sufficient to meet the payee’s future financial obligations for maintenance and support of the payee’s dependents, specifically including, but not limited to, the payee’s child support obligations, if any. The payee shall disclose to the transferee and the court his or her court-ordered child support or maintenance obligations for the court’s consideration.

(9) Whether the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate applied to determine the amount to be paid to the payee, the expenses and costs of the transaction for both the payee and the transferee, the size of the transaction, the available financial alternatives to the payee to achieve the payee’s stated objectives, are fair and reasonable.

(10) Whether the payee completed previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments and the timing and size of the previous transactions and whether the payee was satisfied with any previous transaction.

(11) Whether the transferee attempted previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments that were denied, or that were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.

(12) Whether, to the best of the transferee’s knowledge after making inquiry with the payee, the payee has attempted structured settlement payment transfer transactions with another person or entity, other than the transferee, that were denied, or which were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.

(13) Whether the payee, or his or her family or dependents, are in or are facing a hardship situation.

(14) Whether the payee received independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction. The court may deny or defer ruling on the petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights if the court believes that the payee does not fully understand the proposed transaction and that independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction should be obtained by the payee.

(15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”

Here, the Court does not find this transfer in Payee’s best interest. It is evident from the other, alternative offers available, including those by Berkshire, that the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate, are not fair and reasonable. Berkshire’s current offer provides $41,300.00, an additional $16,000 over the $24,844.07 offered by Petitioner, at a discount rate of 7.67% instead of 24.99%.

The Court, therefore, denies the petition.

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.

Re:                In the Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC

Case No.:   VCU330038

Date:           March 12, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Petition to Approve Transfer of Structured Settlement

Tentative Ruling: To grant the petition.

Facts

The Petition states that Payee is 21 years old, single, with no minor children. Further, that Payee is employed, earning $2,000 per month. Payee does not have any court ordered support payments.

Payee currently receives an annuity from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company based on  a 2019 claim.

Based on the petition, Payee seeks to transfer one payment of $79,786.00 due on September 6, 2029, for $51,500, creating a discount rate of 11.41%.

On September 10, 2025, Payee previously filed a petition for transfer involving this settlement on simular terms as Case No. VCU325618.  That petition was denied.

Exhibits C and D, state no hardship or provide details as to Payee’s monthly income or expenses.

However, Payee has filed an additional declaration confirming monthly income of $2,000 per month, that Payee has no other sources of income, and that:

“If approved, I will use the money received from the proposed settlement to purchase a vehicle to allow myself to have reliable transportation. I plan to allocate about $25,000.00 towards a certified, used vehicle with low mileage I plan to buy the car outright to reduce my monthly expenses & I expect to pay about $200 a month for car insurance for the vehicle.

With the remaining funds, I will be getting a place of my own to live. I have looked at studio and 1-bedroom apartments in my area and can expect to pay $1,200.00 to $1,500.00 per month. The expected deposit on a property will be about $3,000.00 and I also plan to spend approximately $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 to furnish the apartment. I plan to buy a bed set, sofa, TV, dryer/washer & microwave. The remaining funds will go to help afford my rent and any unforeseen expenses while I increase my hours at my job and seek a higher paying role.

Currently, I live with my mother and brother in a family rented apartment, paying my share of the rent which is about $550.00. However, I cannot live comfortably and would like to have a space of my own. My other monthly expenses, which include my phone, credit card and my part of utilities/groceries currently add up to approximately $1,000.00. I expect the utilities/groceries to be less on my own as I will be by myself.

I have made the calculations for my budget and will be able to afford my rent, insurance and all other expenses mentioned through my employment. I plan to be stricter with my spending while increasing my hours at work to allow myself to build a more significant savings for an emergencies as well.” (Declaration of Payee ¶11.)

The petition states Payee is not likely to require future medical care and treatment for injuries sustained in connection with the settlement and that the settlement was not intended for such purposes. Payee has waived his right to seek independent counsel.

Authority and Analysis

A transfer of structured settlement payment rights is not effective unless the transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based on the following express findings by the Court.

Under Ins. Code § 10139.5(a)(1), the Court must determine whether the “transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.” The Court considers the following non-exclusive factors under Ins. Code § 10139.5(b):

(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level.

(2) The stated purpose of the transfer.

(3) The payee’s financial and economic situation.

(4) The terms of the transaction, including whether the payee is transferring monthly or lump sum payments or all or a portion of his or her future payments.

(5) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to pay for the future medical care and treatment of the payee relating to injuries sustained by the payee in the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee still needs those future payments to pay for that future care and treatment.

(6) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to provide for the necessary living expenses of the payee and whether the payee still needs the future structured settlement payments to pay for future necessary living expenses.

(7) Whether the payee is, at the time of the proposed transfer, likely to require future medical care and treatment for the injuries that the payee sustained in connection with the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee lacks other resources, including insurance, sufficient to cover those future medical expenses.

(8) Whether the payee has other means of income or support, aside from the structured settlement payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer, sufficient to meet the payee’s future financial obligations for maintenance and support of the payee’s dependents, specifically including, but not limited to, the payee’s child support obligations, if any. The payee shall disclose to the transferee and the court his or her court-ordered child support or maintenance obligations for the court’s consideration.

(9) Whether the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate applied to determine the amount to be paid to the payee, the expenses and costs of the transaction for both the payee and the transferee, the size of the transaction, the available financial alternatives to the payee to achieve the payee’s stated objectives, are fair and reasonable.

(10) Whether the payee completed previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments and the timing and size of the previous transactions and whether the payee was satisfied with any previous transaction.

(11) Whether the transferee attempted previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments that were denied, or that were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.

(12) Whether, to the best of the transferee’s knowledge after making inquiry with the payee, the payee has attempted structured settlement payment transfer transactions with another person or entity, other than the transferee, that were denied, or which were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.

(13) Whether the payee, or his or her family or dependents, are in or are facing a hardship situation.

(14) Whether the payee received independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction. The court may deny or defer ruling on the petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights if the court believes that the payee does not fully understand the proposed transaction and that independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction should be obtained by the payee.

(15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”

The Court finds the information as to Payee’s income and expenses and proposed use of the funds to be sufficient and therefore finds the proposed transfer to be in the best interest of the Payee.

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.

Re:                 Bank of the Sierra vs. Orrenzo Snyder, M.D. Medical Corporation

Case No.:     VCU321991

Date:             March 12, 2026

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.            1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Motion to Set Aside Default

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to order Defendants to file proposed answer no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing; to award Plaintiff fees and costs payable by Defendant’s counsel of record in the amount of $4,388.40, due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff served the complaint on Defendants June 18, 2025.

On August 5, 2025 default was entered and on August 28, 2025, default judgment was entered in the amount of $58,808.75.

On February 11, 2026, Defendants filed this motion for relief from default and on February 19, 2025, Defendants filed an amended motion and declaration of counsel in support.

The amended declaration states:

“5. Plaintiff then filed its Proof of Service with the Court on July 21, 2025.

6. Shortly after Defendant Orrenzo Snyder was served with the Complaint, he contacted me regarding this dispute. We discussed my retention to represent him in this action.

7. During these conversations, Orrenzo Snyder advised me that this suit had been filed and that he had already been served.

8. At that time, I was preparing for trial in two other matters and as a result, I made the mistake of not noting or calendaring the deadline for the Defendants' responsive pleading.

9. Sometime in September 2025, I learned that Plaintiff had taken a default judgment against the Defendants…

12. My mistake was not properly calendaring the deadline for Defendants' responsive pleading. This mistake was not deliberate or intended.

13. I fully intended to file a timely answer to this Complaint.

14. My failure to respond to this Complaint was due to my mistake, and was inadvertent.” (Declaration of Carruth ¶¶5-9, 12-14.)

In opposition, Plaintiff notes that despite the declaration admitting to knowledge of the default in September 2025, no calendaring error was previously asserted during discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel and there is no explanation as the delay in filing this motion. Plaintiff indicates post judgment discovery has been sent out and Plaintiff has incurred fees in seeking to enforce the judgment.

Authority and Analysis

Generally, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the court may grant discretionary relief to a party from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding that was entered against the party due to excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect on the part of the party. (Id.)

However, also under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the court must grant relief when an attorney for the party seeking relief submits a sworn affidavit attesting that his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect caused the judgment to be entered against the party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438 [explaining difference between mandatory and discretionary relief under section 473, subd. (b)].)

As to this mandatory relief provision, Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) states, in relevant part, the following:

“…Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b))

Here, the motion is timely as it is made within six months of entry of judgment.

Counsel for Defendant has submitted a sworn declaration attesting that the firm was aware Defendant had been served, and that counsel, shortly after July 21, 2025, failed to calendar the deadline to file a responsive pleading.

“Relief is mandatory when a complying affidavit is filed, even if the attorney's neglect was inexcusable.” (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516-517; Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 225.)

“‘The only limitation is when the court finds [that] the default [or dismissal] was not in fact the attorney's fault, for example when the attorney is simply covering up for the client…’ (Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 816, 821.)” (Todd v. Thrifty Corp. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 986, 991.)

Motions brought under section 473 involve “an assessment of credibility by the trial court.” (Behm v. Clear View Techs. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.) In Behm, the court upheld the trial court’s determination that an attorney’s affidavit of fault lacked credibility based on “contradictions and discrepancies” between the attorney’s affidavit and his “earlier representations to the court.” (Id.) This included “different excuses” than those that had been provided earlier in the litigation for the same conduct. (Id.) The court concluded that the attorney had “forfeited his credibility when in his subsequent affidavit, he attempted ‘to change the facts and blame himself.’” (Id. at 16.) Thus, the court had not erred in finding the affidavit “incredible” and denying mandatory relief under § 473(b). (Id.)

Behm does not appear to be analogous here, as the Court does not find any such contradictions that would warrant denial.

That Defendants’ counsel did not previously disclose the intent to file this motion, or the basis thereof after learning of the entry of default does not appear to be fatal to this motion.

Plaintiff cites to default Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420, but the section cited relates to discretionary relief. Huh does discuss mandatory relief, consistent with the restatement of the law above. (Id. at 1414-1416.)

Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. The Court notes the proposed answer attached to Counsel’s declaration as a proposed answer.

Further, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are mandatory when granting a motion for relief from default based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 473(b) [“The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”].)

Here, Plaintiff states $4,980.00, and costs total $30.90 have been incurred with respect to obtaining the default judgment and pursuing enforcement. The billing records reflect 12.45 hours at a rate of $400 per hour and costs related to entry of default.

The Court will award $4,357.50, consisting of the 12.45 hours at the local, reasonable rate of $350 per hour, plus costs of $30.90, for a total award of $4,388.40.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion, orders Defendants to file proposed answer no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing and awards fees and costs payable by Defendant’s counsel of record in the amount of $4,388.40, due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.

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.

Re:                 Berry, Robert vs. Wildfire Defense Systems, Inc.

Case No.:    VCU315054

Date:            March 12, 2026

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.            1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion as indicated herein; to set the motion for final approval for October 29, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.  CMC is off calendar.

Facts

The Court previously continued this matter and ordered a further declaration as to the notice period of 60 days, the lodestar and the presently incurred costs.

On March 5, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration addressing those issues.

Class Notice

The settlement agreement provides no claim form will be required of class members to participate in distributions.  Only those wishing to object or opt out must file notice with the settlement administrator. 

Objections or opt out notices are now to be made within 60 days. The Court regularly approves notice periods of 60 days or longer. The class notice period, therefore, is approved.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $500,000 or $166,666 and costs not to exceed $22,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel.

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 indicates that the firm has spent 180 hours on this case, at a rates ranging from $995 to $450 per hour, providing a base lodestar of $119,117.50. (Supplemental Declaration of Nordrehaug ¶5.) Therefore, to award the amount requested, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 1.4. The Court permits a maximum multiplier on these types of cases of 1.5 and therefore the fees are preliminarily approved.

Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of $20,004.88 (Supplemental Declaration of Nordrehaug ¶6.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $22,000.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and preliminarily approves Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $500,000 as follows:

Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (33.3%):	$166,666
Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to):	$22,000
Preliminarily Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$5,000
Preliminarily Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$10,000
Preliminarily Approved PAGA Payment	$20,000
Preliminarily Approved Net Settlement Amount	$276,334

The Court sets the motion for final approval for October 29, 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.

Examiner Notes for Probate Matters Calendared

• Visalia Division 
• South County Justice Center Division