Review Hearing
10. S-CV-0051463 Lincoln Hills v. Sun City Lincoln Hills
Review Hearing
Appearance of the parties is required on June 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 20 before the Honorable Angus Saint-Evens. Department 20 is located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.
11. S-CV-0051751 Ghaffari-Monazzah, Parto v. Lee West, Christa
Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor
The petition for approval of minor’s compromise claim is granted. After careful consideration of the petition and attachments, the court finds the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. (Prob. Code, § 3500; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337-38.)
12. S-CV-0052071 Mustain, William v. Johnson, Richard Wayne
Motion for Final Approval
The unopposed motion is granted. The court has broad discretion to determine whether a class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (In re Cellphone Fee Termination Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1389.) When reviewing the fairness of the settlement, the court is to give due regard to the parties’ agreement, ensuring that the agreement is not a product of fraud, overreaching parties, or collusion and that the settlement, as a whole, is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v.
Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145.) A presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement was reached through arms-length bargaining; (2) the investigation and discovery were sufficient to allow class counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) class counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) there is a small percentage of objectors. (Ibid.)
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?”
Further, the court reviews the moving papers along with the entirety of the court file to determine that the settlement is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the underlying purposes of the PAGA-related statute. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l); O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110.) The court must also determine whether the PAGA settlement appears fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate. (O’Connor, supra, 201 F.Supp.3d at p. 1120.)
The court has carefully reviewed and considered the class action and PAGA action settlement agreement and plaintiff’s moving papers and declarations submitted in support thereof. The court determines a sufficient showing has been made that the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court further determines a sufficient showing has been made that the settlement is fair, reasonable, genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the purpose of PAGA.
8