DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV02565·santacruz·Civil·Class Action — Wage & Hour
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

ESPINOZA et al. v. ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffESPINOZA
DefendantENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 23, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Nos. 21CV02110, 21CV01946, 21CV02782, 22CV02565

ESPINOZA et al. v. ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES

(UNOPPOSED) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT

Based on the pleadings submitted, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness and no evidence having been presented to overcome the presumption, the motion for final approval is granted. The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment, and will set a nonappearance hearing date to confirm the distribution.

No. 26CV01693

SILVA v. SILVA

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION REGARDING IMMEDIATE RETURN OF VEHICLE

The application is denied.

Plaintiff seeks the return of a vehicle she used during her annulled marriage to defendant. Plaintiff’s declaration filed June 16, 2026, states the vehicle she seeks returned (2020 Ford Expedition) was her primary and exclusive vehicle and she contributed to its payments and maintenance. She declares the Family Court never issued an order requiring the vehicle be returned to Gavin Silva. She describes that on May 12, 2026, Mr. Silva repossessed the vehicle in the parking lot of Scotts Valley High with the couple’s twin sons present.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share