Motion to Stay
3
connection with the writ, AC 2525 could have done so, including by seeking leave to file a supplemental brief in advance of the writ hearing. It did not do so. AC 2525’s other arguments do not purport to identify new or different facts, circumstances or law, but rather reargue AC 2525’s positions and express AC 2525’s disagreement with the court’s ruling. E.g., Brief (ROA 166) at 2:16 (“Third, the Court’s focus on Petitioner’s ownership interest in the Property is misguided”); Reply (ROA 175) at 5:25-26 (“The Court should reconsider its order because its mootness determination rests on an incorrect legal conclusion”).
Respondent City of Santa Ana filed a surreply (ROA 177) in which it seeks sanctions against AC 2525 pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 128.5. The City’s request for sanctions is denied without prejudice to the City filing and serving a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 128.5. The City’s Reply Request for Judicial Notice is denied as the document is not material to the disposition of the motion for reconsideration. Respondent City of Santa Ana to give notice. 2 Alvira v. Pampanga Food Company, Inc., et al.
2025-01484062 Plaintiff Balbino Alvira’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order Plaintiff Balbina Alvira moves for entry of a protective order following defendants Omni Resource Solutions, LLC’s (Omni) and Pampanga Food Company, Inc.’s (Pampanga) refusals to respond to plaintiff’s request that defendants stipulate to entry of a protective order based on the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s model protective order. Omni did not file an opposition. Pampanga filed a “limited” opposition. Plaintiff agrees in his reply with Pampanga’s request that the archival provision in paragraph 21 of plaintiff’s proposed protective order (ROA 164) be made reciprocal.
None of Pampanga’s other objections to plaintiff’s proposed protective order is persuasive. There is no need to restate portions of the court’s March 5, 2026 order (ROA 153) in the protective order, to set forth Pampanga’s litigation positions in the protective order, or to include obvious points (e.g., the protective order is not a sealing order) in the protective order. Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve by June 18, 2026 a revised copy of plaintiff’s proposed protective order (ROA 164) with paragraph 21 modified to be reciprocal.
Pampanga’s request that the court enter its competing proposed protective order (ROA 216) is denied. Plaintiff to give notice. 3 Arriola v. Harbor Distributing, LLC, et al.
2025-01502092 Defendants Harbor Distributing, L.L.C. and Reyes Holdings, L.L.C.’s Motion to Stay Defendants Harbor Distributing, L.L.C. and Reyes Holdings, L.L.C move to stay this class action pending resolution of two previouslyfiled class and representative action lawsuits (Ascensao v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV14911, and Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., San
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Francisco County Superior Court Case No. TC24-1404). Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and therefore defendants’ unopposed motion is granted. This action is stayed pending resolution of Ascensao v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV14911, and Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. TC24-1404. Defendants to give notice. Status Conference The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statement filed May 29, 2026 (ROA 49).
Based thereon, and in light of the court’s concurrently-issued order staying this action, the June 11, 2026 status conference is continued to October 8, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice. 4 Barcenas v. Bambuza OC Ventures LLC, et al.
2024-01415928 Off calendar. 5 Barcenas v. Bambuza OC Ventures LLC
2024-01433210 Off calendar. 6 Burrows v. Drybar Products, LLC
2025-01473104 Off calendar. 7 Guerra v. Pulmuone U.S.A., Inc., et al.
2022-01245975 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA settlement. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff filed this motion for preliminary approval on April 18, 2025 seeking approval of a $237,500 class and PAGA action settlement. ROA 170.
In the court’s August 21, 2025 order (ROA 185), the court stated that in addition to a $5,000 enhancement award, plaintiff sought an additional $5,000 payment from the gross settlement amount to compensate plaintiff for a “general release of claims against the Released Parties in connection with her alleged employment with Defendants and Plaintiff’s waiver of California Civil Code § 1542,” and that the court was unlikely to approve a settlement that provided for payment for plaintiff’s general release from the gross settlement amount.
The court further noted that the provision was inconsistent with paragraphs 1.23, 1.29 and 4.4 of the settlement agreement (and section 3(1) of the notice).