Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, September 15, 2026, are:

Re:                Hernandez, Hector Salvador Jr. vs. FCA US, LLC.

Case No.:   VCU311017

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and award $7,105.00 in fees and $3,422.87 in costs.

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff purchased new 2018 Dodge Durango (“Vehicle”) which allegedly developed substantial defects that Defendant was unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts. On July 23, 2025, Defendant made a 998 offer of $20,000.00 cash plus attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to California Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d), which Plaintiff accepted.

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion for fees and costs, seeking fees in the amount of $22,753.67, consisting of: (1) 13,208.00 in attorney fees; (2) a 1.35 multiplier enhancement of $4,622.80; (3) 3,422.87 in costs and expenses; and (4) $1,500.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition, draft the Reply, and attend the hearing on this Motion (though counsel expects to incur over $1,500.00 in fees on these tasks)

In opposition, Defendant appears to challenge each and every entry, argues the rate charged is excessive, notes no memorandum of costs filed and that no multiplier should be awarded.

Authority and Analysis

Lodestar Calculation

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.”  (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

“Under that [lodestar]method, the court ‘tabulates the attorney fee touchstone, or lodestar, by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.’ (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek to recover 27.6 hours at rates ranging from $910 to $195 and to for an award of a 1.35 multiplier.

No Multiplier

As to the 1.35 enhancement sought by Plaintiff, such an award is based on the following factors:

1. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
2. The skill displayed in presenting them;
3. The extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorney; and
4. The contingent nature of the fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ justification for the multiplier is conclusory and does not set forth an adequate basis to award an enhancement. The Court does not find that the work cited demonstrates such extraordinary skill to justify an enhancement to the award sought. This case settled before trial, and the Court finds that this appears to be a standard Song-Beverly case, with no additional novelty or difficulty of issues evidenced from the supporting papers filed by Plaintiff.

As to the third factor, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s counsel was precluded from accepting other work.

As to the fourth factor, The Court further agree that the “contingent risk” here was minimal given the mandated fee-shifting of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ketchum v. Jones (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141-42 [Where attorney fees are mandatory, the “contingent” risk of “establishing eligibility for the award” is not actually contingent and does not warrant an enhancement.].)

The Court will not award an enhancement in this case.

Reasonable Local Rate

“The lodestar calculation begins with a determination of the ‘reasonable hourly rate,’ i.e., the rate ‘prevailing in the community for similar work.’ (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.) “The general rule is ‘[t]he relevant “community” is that where the court is located.’ (Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 71.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id.)  Additionally, the determination of the value of the legal services is committed to the discretion of the trial court without necessity of expert testimony. (Cordero-Sacks, v. Housing Authority (2011) 200 Cal App 4th 1267, 1286.)

There is no evidence provided that the attorney rates ranging from $910 to $435 for attorneys, and rates ranging from $360 to $195 for clerks, are the prevailing rates in Tulare County for counsel, where this Court resides. This Court, based upon its experience as to the prevailing rates in Tulare County, sets the hourly rate at $350 per hour for counsel. Further, the Court will set all clerk work performed at the rate of $150 per hour.

Number of Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff’s counsel’s records indicate 27.6 hours incurred on this matter.

Although detailed time records are not required, courts have expressed a preference for contemporaneous billing and an explanation of work. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.) “Of course, the attorney's testimony must be based on the attorney's personal knowledge of the time spent and fees incurred. (Evid.Code, § 702, subd. (a) [‘the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter’].) Still, precise calculations are not required; fair approximations based on personal knowledge will suffice.” (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 257, 269.) 

The starting point for the determination as to hours is the attorney’s submitted time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 395-397—verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous.)

 Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the fees were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and were reasonable in amount. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 34, as modified (Oct. 11, 2019), rev. denied (Jan. 2, 2020) [internal quotations and citations omitted].) If the party seeking fees fails to meet this burden, and the court finds the time expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances, “then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 [citing Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor Am. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104]; see also Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [where prevailing party fails to meet that burden, the court “has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an unreasonable fee altogether”].)

As noted above, Defendant challenges, seemingly, every entry either via the rate discussed above or the hours billed. Unless discussed below, the Court rejects Defendant’s challenges.

• 07/21/2025 – Draft MSC Statement: Here, Defendant challenges the 3 hours incurred regarding drafting the MSC statement by a law clerk, seeking a reduction to 2 hours. The Court agrees and will reduce the entry to 2 hours (-1 as to Silva)
• 07/24/2025 – Revise and Finalized MSC Statement: Here, Defendant challenges the 2.5 additional hours incurred by counsel as to the MSC statement. The Court considers review and finalization by an attorney of a law clerk’s work reasonable and will not make a reduction here. (-0 hours)
• 07/31/2025 – Prepare for and attend mediation: Here, Defendant challenges the 6.1 hours incurred by counsel for preparation for and attendance at mediation, seeking a reduction to 1 hour as excessive, inflated and overstaffing. The Court will reduce this entry by 2.1 hours (-2.1 as to Orte.)
• 08/08/2025 – Draft trial documents: Here Defendant challenges the 2.2 hours entered as excessive and unnecessary because a settlement offer was served 7/23/2025 and accepted 8/13/2025. The Court disagrees that simply because a settlement offer was provided that trial preparation should cease. The Court will make no reduction here (-0 hours)
• Anticipated – Review opposition and draft reply re: fee motion: The Court does not award anticipated fees and therefore will not award this amount.

As a result, the Court calculates the fees as follows: 17 hours at $350 per hour and 7.7 hours at $150 per hour, for a total of $7,105.00

Costs

Plaintiff seeks to recover $3,422.87 in costs.

Defendant argues no memorandum of costs has been filed, has not categorized the recoverable costs and provide no evidentiary basis justifying the expenses and costs.

Plaintiff argues that no memorandum of costs needs to be filed, as Plaintiff seeks recovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 1794(d) and that the definition of expenses pursuant thereto is wider than section 1033.5.

To start, section 1033.5 sets forth allowable costs reasonably necessary to "the conduct of litigation." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.)

However, Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d) enables the prevailing "buyer" in a Song-Beverly matter to be "…allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses…” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d), emphasis added.) Courts have interpreted Section 1794's "expenses" provision to include "out-of-pocket expenses beyond the costs identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. (Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450, 457 [citing Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138, disapproved on other grounds].)

Defendants arguments center on reasonable necessity, the alleged requirement of a memorandum of costs and lack of evidentiary support for the costs. However, Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration attesting to the costs, inclusive of a itemized summary of costs and expenses.

As such, the Court will award the costs and expenses as requested in the amount of $3,422.87.

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:                 Guereca, Gotxon vs. General Motors LLC

Case No.:   VCU325489

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Tentative Ruling:  To grant the unopposed motion and award $12,130 in fees and $2,374.50 in costs.

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff purchased a 2021 GMC Sierra 1500 (“Vehicle”) which allegedly experienced engine malfunction; transmission malfunction; vehicle shaking when idle; transmission jerking at high speeds, and an inoperable reverse camera.

On May 15, 2025, a notice of conditional settlement was filed.

On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion to recover fees in the amount of $22,947.00, plus a 1.1 multiplier and $2,374.50 in costs, for a total award of $27,616.20.

No opposition appears filed

Authority and Analysis

Lodestar Calculation

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.”  (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

“Under that [lodestar]method, the court ‘tabulates the attorney fee touchstone, or lodestar, by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.’ (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek to recover 35.4 hours at rates ranging from $625 to $220 per hour, as well as for a flat rate for services in the amount of $3,900, and anticipated hours as to this motion, as well as a 1.1 multiplier.

No Multiplier

As to the 1.1 enhancement sought by Plaintiff, such an award is based on the following factors:

1. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
2. The skill displayed in presenting them;
3. The extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorney; and
4. The contingent nature of the fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ justification for the multiplier is conclusory and does not set forth an adequate basis to award an enhancement. The Court does not find that the work cited demonstrates such extraordinary skill to justify an enhancement to the award sought. This case settled before trial, and the Court finds that this appears to be a standard Song-Beverly case, with no additional novelty or difficulty of issues evidenced from the supporting papers filed by Plaintiff.

As to the third factor, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s counsel was precluded from accepting other work.

As to the fourth factor, The Court further agree that the “contingent risk” here was minimal given the mandated fee-shifting of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ketchum v. Jones (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141-42 [Where attorney fees are mandatory, the “contingent” risk of “establishing eligibility for the award” is not actually contingent and does not warrant an enhancement.].)

The Court will not award an enhancement in this case.

Reasonable Local Rate

“The lodestar calculation begins with a determination of the ‘reasonable hourly rate,’ i.e., the rate ‘prevailing in the community for similar work.’ (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.) “The general rule is ‘[t]he relevant “community” is that where the court is located.’ (Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 71.)” (Marshall, supra, 54 Cal.App.5^th at 285.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id.)  Additionally, the determination of the value of the legal services is committed to the discretion of the trial court without necessity of expert testimony. (Cordero-Sacks, v. Housing Authority (2011) 200 Cal App 4th 1267, 1286.)

There is no evidence provided that the attorney rates ranging from $625 to $450 per hour for counsel, and $220 per hour for paralegals, are the prevailing rates in Tulare County for counsel, where this Court resides. This Court, based upon its experience as to the prevailing rates in Tulare County, sets the hourly rate at $350 per hour for counsel. Further, the Court will set all paralegal work performed at the rate of $150 per hour.

Number of Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff’s counsel’s records indicate 35.4 hours incurred.

Although detailed time records are not required, courts have expressed a preference for contemporaneous billing and an explanation of work. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.) “Of course, the attorney's testimony must be based on the attorney's personal knowledge of the time spent and fees incurred. (Evid.Code, § 702, subd. (a) [‘the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter’].) Still, precise calculations are not required; fair approximations based on personal knowledge will suffice.” (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 257, 269.) 

The starting point for the determination as to hours is the attorney’s submitted time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 395-397—verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous.)

 Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the fees were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and were reasonable in amount. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 34, as modified (Oct. 11, 2019), rev. denied (Jan. 2, 2020) [internal quotations and citations omitted].) If the party seeking fees fails to meet this burden, and the court finds the time expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances, “then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 [citing Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor Am. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104]; see also Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [where prevailing party fails to meet that burden, the court “has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an unreasonable fee altogether”].)

To start, the Court removes $3,900 “flat rate charge” which fails to reflect the number of hours incurred. This is precisely the type of “blockbilled” entry that permits the Court to reduce the fee award. (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 441.)

Absent an opposition and other than the flat rate charged noted above, the Court identifies no other entries that warrant reduction. Additionally, the Court notes it does not award anticipated hours.

As a result, the Court calculates the fees as follows: 34.1 hours at $350 per hour and 1.3 hours at $150 per hour, for a total of $12,130

Costs

Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,374.50 in costs. As noted above, Defendant has not opposed this motion or the memorandum of costs. The Court will award $2,374.50 in costs.

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:                Gustafson, Jason A. vs. American Honda Motor Co, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU328353

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion in part and order a further response to Nos. 1,3, 4, 7, 10, and 31 no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing; to deny the motion in part as to Nos. 8, 16, 23-28, and 30; to deny the request for sanctions.

Facts

In this Song Beverly Matter involving the lease of a 2024 Honda Prologue, the complaint alleges “electrical, steering, structural, transmission, and suspension system defects” but notes presentations for rear-view camera malfunctioning, noise emitted while turning, braking assistance system issues, seat issues and issues with the key fob. (Complaint ¶¶11-15.)

On or about January 16, 2026, Plaintiffs propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

On or about April 3, 2026, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests asserting objections to each response, and, in some instances stating “without waiving these objections, the requested production will be allowed in whole and all documents in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of AHM will be included in the production, including the non-confidential portions of the ACS File. AHM will also produce its CRRS Reports and the confidential portions of the ACS File, which contain information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and/or proprietary, pursuant to the entry of an appropriate protective order.”

On or about May 12, 2026, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter. On May 22, 2026, Defendant responded stating “AHM served its non-confidential documents on May 8, 2026, which includes 475 pages of documents, along with the proposed stipulated protective order. Further, AHM will be sending the confidential production of documents once a conformed copy of the stipulated protective order is received.”

Additionally, Defendant and Plaintiff, thereafter, extended the time to file this motion to compel further and continued to correspond as to document production.

On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion and filed an amended motion on July 9, 2026.

Plaintiff states that the objections are boilerplate, the responses are not Code-complaint and that, in Plaintiff’s counsel declaration dated July 6, 2026 “On or about April 3, 2026, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests asserting boilerplate objections that are not Code-compliant to every single of Plaintiffs’ requests. Moreover, at this time, Defendant failed to produce many of the responsive documents requested.”

As such, Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 16, 23-28, and 30-31.

No opposition has been filed.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 requires, in response to a request for production, the following:

“(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”

 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 provides “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) permits a party to demand a further response where:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under subsection (b), the motion must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10

Plaintiff characterizes these requests as involving Plaintiff’s own vehicle.

The Court notes that Defendant either indicates production will occur, or that production will occur upon execution of a protective order, except as to No. 8.

The response to No. 8 states “Pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, AHM has no documents responsive to this request specifically issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and no responsive documents exist or have ever existed.”

Further, Defendant’s meet and confer correspondence appears to indicate production documents occurred, at the latest, June 17, 2026 wherein links for confidential and non-confidential documents were provided. (Exhibit 7.)

The Court notes the general statements “Moreover, at this time, Defendant failed to produce many of the responsive documents requested” and “Defendant has not yet provided adequate discovery responses or produced all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests” by Plaintiff’s counsel lack any reference to this production and whether production has occurred.

To the extent production has not occurred as to these categories, the Court orders further responses, except as to No. 8, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing

No. 16

Plaintiff characterizes these requests as involving Defendant’s policies and procedures for handling Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Cases.

No. 16 states:       

“All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR Call Center Policies and Procedures for escalating customer complaints relating to any defects present in their vehicle.”

Defendant objected to the request, but indicated that various confidential documents would be provided pursuant to a protective order.

The Court, however, finds this category overbroad on its face in that it is not limited to polices related to the defects presented by Plaintiffs’ vehicle. As such, the Court will not order further production here.

Nos. 23-28

Plaintiff characterizes these requests as involving Defendant’s warranty policy and the procedure used for handling warranty issues.

Like the above, the Court finds these requests overbroad, as they seek documents for handling any and all warranty issues, as opposed to issues presented to Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

The Court will not order further production here.

Nos. 30-31

Plaintiff characterizes these requests as seeking information regarding similar customer complaints in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

Unlike the above, these requests are tailored to the issues present in Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The Court finds that documents relating to vehicles of the same make, model, and year, that exhibited "substantially similar" defects are within the scope of discovery to the action and are not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad, and do not request documents from other entities.

As such, the Court will order a further response to No. 30.

No. 31 seeks documents relate to “Field Service Act” issued with respect to issues alleged to be suffered by Plaintiffs’ Vehicle. Defendant’s response states “AHM is unable to comply with this request. AHM has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has no "Field Service Actions," and no responsive documents have ever existed.”

The separate statement uses the term “field reports data” and references documents produced to the NHTSA and defined under 49 C.F.R. §§ 579.21, et seq. Plaintiff notes “Notably, as part of Defendant’s requirement to comply with the Code of Federal Regulation, 49 C.F.R. §§ 579.21 et seq., 579.22 et seq requires manufacturers/distributors, like AHM to quarterly submit to the National Highway Safety Administration the documents which Plaintiffs is seeking.”

As such, the Court will order a further response to No. 31.

Sanctions

Based on mixed results, the Court declines to award sanctions. (Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437.)

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:                Felix, Jose vs. D.R. Klassen Packing, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU318452

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Continued 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 13, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 2.

Background

On August 24, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration addressing the notice period, lodestar, presently incurred costs and proof of submission to the LWDA.

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 $100,000 or $33,333.33 and costs not to exceed $10,000 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 Mirabel indicates that the firm has spent 147 hours on this case, at a self adjusted rate of $700 per hour resulting in a lodestar of $ $102,900. (Supplemental Declaration of Mirabel ¶6.)

Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of  $7,341.26 (Supplemental Declaration of Mirabel ¶8.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $10,000.00.

LWDA Notice

Counsel’s declaration indicates confirmation from the LWDA of receipt of proof of submission of the proposed settlement agreement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) (Declaration of Supplemental Mirabel ¶9 – Exhibit 4.) However, the Court notes no Exhibit 8 attached to the declaration.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion and Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $100,000 are preliminarily approved as follows:

Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (33.3%):	$33,333.33
Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to):	$10,000.00
Preliminarily Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff:	$1,500.00
Preliminarily Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$10,000.00
Preliminarily Approved LWDA PAGA Payment	$5,000.00
Preliminarily Approved Net Settlement Amount	$40,166.67

The Court sets the motion for final approval for April 13, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 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. 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:                Ferrer Arellano, Luis Domingo vs. OHK Transport, LLC

Case No.:   VCU325142

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

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

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion for preliminary approval, as modified herein; to set the motion for final approval is set for April 13, 2027 8:30 am, Department 2.

Background

The Court previously continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to information to calculate the lodestar and as to the presently incurred costs. On September 8, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed supplemental declarations addressing these issues.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 35% of the gross settlement fund of $195,000 or $68,250 and costs not to exceed $25,000 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 Seyedfarshi indicates that the firm has spent 34.2 hours on this matter ranging from rates of $733 to $180 per hour. (Declaration of Seyedfarshi ¶5.) This results in a lodestar of $20,146.90.

Further, Counsel Mirabel indicates the firm has spent 73.5 hours at $1,000 per hour. (Declaration of Mirabel ¶5) The Court notes that the $1,000 per hour rate is already higher than what is typically “…prevailing in the community for similar work” and reduces the hourly rate here to $950, resulting in a lodestar of $69,825.  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

As such, the total combined lodestar is $89,971.90. Therefore, the Court approves the fees as requested.

Further Counsel Seyedfarshi indicates incurred costs of $4,772.18 and Counsel Mirabel indicates costs incurred of $9,718.26, for a total of $14,490.44. Therefore, the Court approves costs not to exceed $25,000 as requested.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $195,000 are preliminarily approved as follows:

Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (35%):	$68,250
Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to):	$25,000
Preliminarily Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$5,000
Preliminarily Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$6,250
Preliminarily Approved Total PAGA Payment	$10,000
Preliminarily Approved Net Settlement Amount	$80,500

Motion for final approval is set for April 13, 2027 8:30 am, Department 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. 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:                Gonzalez, Antonio vs. Sierra View Local Health Care District

Case No.:   VCU325894 

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:      Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for OST re: Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative Ruling: The Court does not issue tentative rulings on these motions. Counsel may appear in any manner

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:              Martinez, Armando vs. Porterville Citrus, Inc. a California Company

Case No.:     PCU318066

Date:           September 15, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

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

Tentative Ruling: To continue this motion for preliminary approval to October 13, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 19; to order a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar, and presently incurred costs filed no later than five (5) court days prior to the hearing.

1. Sufficiency of Amount of Settlement (Net Estimated: $ 111,000)

The gross settlement amount is $320,000. Plaintiff estimates approximately 411 proposed Class Members, providing an estimated average payout of $270.07 per member.

The Class Members consist of all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California at any time from February 13, 2021 through the date of Preliminary Approval.

Plaintiff primarily alleged the following violations: 1. Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197); 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194); 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 512 and 226.7); 4. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7); 5. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses ( Cal. Labor Code § 2802); 6. Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226); 7. Failure to Pay All Compensation Due During Employment and Upon Discharge (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203); and 8. Unfair, Unlawful, or Fraudulent Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) 9. Private Attorney General Act (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.)

Plaintiff provides estimates of the maximum recovery for each of the asserted wage and hour claims and penalties with information showing how the estimates were calculated including the damages models utilized. (Declaration of Yadidsion ¶¶32-72.) The maximum exposure under outright victory is estimated to be $5,916,116. Plaintiff has provided a detailed discussion of the value of each claim, applied various discount rates regarding the chance of success as to each claim which corresponds to the final gross settlement amount.

After agreeing to participate in mediation, Defendant informally produced time and pay records for Settlement Class members, key class data points, and other documents and information relevant to the claims alleged in advance of mediation. The parties reached the settlement at mediation.

The Court finds the information provided in support of the gross settlement amount sufficient for the Court to preliminarily approve the gross settlement amount, as the settlement amount appears to be within the recognized range of reasonableness given the claims and defenses asserted in this case.

Plaintiff’s deductions from the gross settlement of $320,000 are proposed as follows:

Proposed Court Approved Attorney Fees (35%):	$112,000
Proposed Attorney Costs (up to):	$22,000
Proposed Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$10,000
Proposed Settlement Administrator Costs	$15,000
Proposed Total PAGA Payment:	$50,000
Proposed Net Settlement Amount	$111,000

2.  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 to be made within 45 days. The Court regularly approves notice periods of 60 days or longer. The class notice period is therefore not approved.

With respect to the content of the Notice, the Court finds the Class Notice to be reasonable.  It clearly provides to the class member an estimate of the settlement share the employee is to receive and provides adequate instructions for any class member to opt out of the settlement or to submit an objection.

3.  Enhancement Award to Class Representative

The court preliminarily approves Plaintiff Armando Cervantes Martinez as Class Representative for settlement purposes. The proposed enhancement award to Plaintiff is $10,000.

The Court has, in past cases, approved enhancement awards of $5,000.00 routinely.

Enhancement payments “are fairly typical in class action cases.” (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1393.) Enhancement payments “are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general.” (Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp. (9th Cir. 2009) 563 F.3d 948, 958-959.) “[T]he rationale for making enhancement or incentive awards to named plaintiffs is that he or she should be compensated for the expense or risk he has incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4^th 785, 806.)

Therefore, the Court will approve a $5,000.00 enhancement.

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Attorneys’ fees of 35% of the gross settlement fund of $320,000 or $112,000 and costs not to exceed $22,000 are sought by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Although the Court recognizes the utilization of the percentage of the common fund methodology to award attorneys’ fees, the Court requires a declaration from counsel that provides an estimate as to what the lodestar would be in this case. The ultimate goal of the Court is to award reasonable attorneys’ fees irrespective of the method of calculation. As such, the court needs to know the estimate of the approximate lodestar supported by declarations for preliminary approval. Counsel should submit information as to the time spent on this action and the hourly rates of all counsel working on the case. Without such information, the Court declines to preliminarily approve the fees.

The Court also cannot preliminarily approve costs up to $22,000 without a declaration which states the costs currently expended. 

The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action attorneys through the declaration of counsel.

5.  Claims Administrator

The Court preliminary approves Apex Class Action LLC as the claims administrator for this class action based on prior experience with this settlement administrator in other class actions litigated in this Court and the proposed estimate attached to the declaration of Sean Hartranft, CEO of Apex. The Court preliminarily approves administration costs not to exceed $15,000.

6. Unclaimed Settlement Proceeds

The Court preliminarily approves the distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to Tulare County Foundation for Ag Education and Youth in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

7. Release

The Court finds the proposed release of claims reasonable under the circumstances.

8. LWDA Notice

The declaration of Yadidsion indicates proof of submission of the proposed settlement agreement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (s)(2).) (Declaration of Yadidsion ¶89.)

9. Class Certification

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 permits certification “when the question is of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 382.)  The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that class certification under section 382 is proper.  (See City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 460.)  To do so, “[t]he party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.”  (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) 

Here, the Motion and accompanying declaration of Counsel sufficiently sets forth the basis for finding the class is numerous and ascertainable as 411 employees have been identified through Defendant’s employment records. Additionally, common questions of law and fact predominate within the individual causes of action based on class wide policies and procedures of Defendant. Further, the class representative, through their declaration, indicates they will adequately and fairly represent the Class Members and will not place their interests above any Class Member. The Class Representative was employed by Defendant during the relevant time period and thus worked under the same policies and procedures as the Class Members.

Therefore, the Court continues this motion for preliminary approval to October 13, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 19 and orders a supplemental declaration as to the notice period, lodestar, and presently incurred costs filed no later than five (5) court days prior to the 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 14, 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
VPR054227	In the Matter of McKay, Janice Marie	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054222	In the Matter of Burns, Gregory A	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 3c omitted: Decedent's residence at time of death. 2. Petition Item 3e(3): Bond Waivers not filed by all beneficiaries listed. 3. Petition Item 3f(2): Copy of decedent's will dated 1/28/2025 not attached. 4. Duties & Liabilities of Personal Representatives (DE-147) not filed. 5. Supplemental Statements of Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed. 6. Notice of Petition to Administer not filed. 7. Proof of Publication not filed. 8. Original will not lodged
VPR054200	In the Matter of Horst, Mark Edward	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 3f(2): Copy of the will is missing pages 8 – 12. 2. Notice of Petition to Administer not filed. 3. Proof of Publication not filed. 4. Original will not lodged
VPR054223	In the Matter of Hernandez, Margarita R	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054255	In the Matter of Flores, Marcelino	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR052031	In the Matter of Becerra, Francisco	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR053324	In the Matter of Williams, Ruth	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Petition paragraph 30-31, Statutory Fee Computation is incorrect: 2% of $65,000 is $1,300. Correct statutory fee is $8,300.00 2. Distribution to Stepchild: Declaration not filed pursuant to Probate Code § 6454
VPR052992	In the Matter of Gregory, Regina Valina	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR053960	In the Matter of the Diane M. Flores Living Trust	Petition to Compel	Appearance Required	Opposition filed by Respondent
VPR054225	In the Matter of Jerry and Merilyn Davis Trust	Petition to Confirm Trust Asset	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR049062	In the Matter of Lorenzo, Michael	Petition Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:

                                         Probate calendar for September 10, 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

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR054259	In the Matter of Ashden, Laura Carol	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	Matter appears to be in order
PPR054247	In the Matter of Puente, Marian	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Capacity Declaration incomplete
PPR053587	In the Matter of Hamilton, Linda	Petition Hearing	Appearance Required	Proposed order to be submitted. Possible issue with Proof of Posting by Clerk, Prob Code §§ 10308, 1230

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 September 11, 2026  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.

Hearing Date & Time	Department Number	Case Number	Case Name	Comments
9/11/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR053990	In the Matter of J.R.T.	GC-080   Notice After Change of Residence of Conservatee or Ward – Required to be filed within 30 days after change of minor's residence.  ICWA- NEED ICWA-030 Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child to be filed and served. Guardianship Orientation needs to be completed. DOJ Background record check needs to be completed.  Notice of Hearing needs to be filed indicating PARENTS were personally served (15 calendar days notice, as required by PROB Code §1511). MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS & PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS need to be served by mail with a copy of the Petition for Appointment and Notice of Hearing  ProbC §1511.