Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, September 17, 2026, are:

Re:                 Amezola, Carlos vs. Kawneer Company, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU313248

Date:           September 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

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

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to set the motion for final approval for April 29, 2027; 8:30 am; D1. CMC is off calendar.

Background Facts

The Court previously continued this matter and ordered supplemental declarations addressing the lodestar, presently incurred costs, proposed cy pres recipient, LWDA notice of settlement, and notice period.

On September 10, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed supplemental declarations addressing these 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 1/3% of the gross settlement fund of $565,000 or $188,333.33 and costs not to exceed $20,000 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 Bacon indicates the firm has spent 139.7 hours on this matter at rates ranging from $1,050 to $500 per hour. (Supplemental Declaration of Bacon ¶21.) 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 will reduce the $1,050 rate to $950 and the $950 rate to $800. As such, the adjusted lodestar as to this firm is $103,375.

Additionally, Counsel Assassi indicates 98.9 hours incurred by the firm at rates ranging from $800 to $750 per hour, creating a base lodestar for the firm of $77,585. (Supplemental Declaration of Assassi ¶4.)

As such, the adjusted combined lodestar is $180,960. Therefore, to award the fees requested, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 1.04. The Court regularly applies multipliers of up to 1.5 on these matters. Therefore, the fees are approved as requested.

Further, counsel indicates $12,100.25 in costs. (Supplemental Declaration of Bacon ¶25.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $20,000.

Unclaimed Settlement Proceeds

The Court preliminarily approves the distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to CASA of Tulare County in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384. (Supplemental Declaration of Bacon ¶¶8-17.)

LWDA Notice

Counsel indicates that confirmation from the LWDA of receipt of proof of submission of the proposed settlement agreement was received September 9, 2026. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) (Supplemental Declaration of Bacon ¶7 – Ex. 2.)

Summary

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $565,000 are preliminarily approved as follows:

Therefore, the Court sets the motion for final approval for April 29, 2027; 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:                 Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella vs. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Case No.:   VCU320350 

Date:            September 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:     Motion for Relief from Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Objections

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion. 

Setton Pistachios of Terra Bella, Inc. (Setton) served demands for production of documents on Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) on October 24, 2025.  According to ETGSA’s counsel, Ron Statler, ETGSA was granted two extensions that were confirmed in writing.  Statler does not state when the extensions expired.  Statler states that later, “[o]n or about June 22, 2026,” Setton’s counsel, Nicolas Cardella, “asked that [ETGSA] respond to the outstanding discovery,” and “mentioned a waiver of objections.”  Stalter told Cardella he “believed [they] were working under an ongoing extension,” but Cardella said “he did not have a record of that in his communications” and Statler “could not find one, either.”  Stalter admits he “failed to confirm an ongoing extension in writing”; it “was [his] fault”; and he states he “proceeded under the mistaken belief that [he] had a written extension agreement … until June 22, 2026.”

ETGSA here moves for relief from waiver of objections to Setton’s document demands that are included in responses ETGSA ultimately served on July 15, 2026. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a) states:  “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it … [t]he party to whom the demand … is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”

Subdivision (a) additionally states, however:  “The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. [¶] (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Staler states the parties were engaged in settlement discussions and he “proceeding with [those discussions] under a mistaken belief that discovery due dates were extended while an active settlement discussion proceeded,” during which “discovery was not mentioned.”  Statler recognizes he “should have been vigilant in securing written extensions,” but states he “mistakenly believed an ongoing one was in place,” and, having found opposing counsel, in prior experiences, generally “reasonable and accommodating,” was “lulled … into not being a vigilant as [he] should have been.”

Staler’s declaration includes ETGSA’s discovery responses, which he represents “includes a response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and [a] privilege log” and “[o]bjections based on attorney client privilege and third-party privacy.”  ETGSA contends its responses “provided notwithstanding its privacy and attorney-client privilege objections, comply with the requirements of sections 2031.220 and 2031.230.”

Setton opposes the motion, identifying various asserted defects in ETGSA’s late discovery responses, and contending that, incident to these defects, the responses are not substantially compliant.  Additionally, Setton contends Statler’s declaration does not establish mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The court finds ETGSA’s late responses meet the minimal standard of substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.  This is not to say ETGSA is immune from a subsequent motion to compel further responses, or monetary sanctions, but, rather, the court’s determination is that Setton’s contentions largely concern technical defects better addressed in a motion to compel further responses. 

The court additionally finds ETGSA has made a sufficient showing, based on the declaration of Staler, of excusable neglect.  This determination is informed by the undisputed facts that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions for months after expiration of the prior discovery deadline extensions had expired, during which time Setton did not raise the issue of its outstanding discovery.   Setton did not address the outstanding discovery issues until June 2026.  Additionally, not disputed is that ETGSA had largely ceased operations by October 2025 incident to SWRCB’s probationary designation, and was winding up its business at that time. 

Again, none of this immunizes the possibility of a further motion to compel or potential monetary sanctions.  The court’s limited determination here is that ETGSA establishes a basis for relief from its waiver of objections. 

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:                Carranza Mendoza, Jose Luis vs. Installed Building Products, LLC et al

Case No.:  VCU329775

Date:           September 17, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:      Plaintiff’s Motions for Compel Further Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, as to Defendant Installed Building, (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, as to Defendant Broken Drum (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Installed Building (4) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Broken Drum and (5) Requests for Admission, Set One,

Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled 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. 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

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared September 16, 2026, that allow for posting:

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

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:

                                         Probate calendar for September 17, 2026

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

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302 or 1430

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

GUARDIANSHIP CASES

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

         Visalia- Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide; Honorable David C. Mathias

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared AS STATED BELOW that allow for posting:

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302.