Plaintiff's Motion to Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement
Because of the late filing of the opposition and reply, and because the filing of the First Amended Complaint in the civil case is still in flux (with a related hearing now set for July 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21), the Court CONTINUES this matter on its own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
This is the second (or third”) motion to consolidate trial that the moving party has filed in this case. The last motion was denied on 5/14/26 for a procedural defect. But I will forward you and Kim the prior email in a moment to remind you of the dispute.
The opposition to this motion was late-filed on 6/29/26, the day that the reply was due, and AFTER the moving party filed a notice of non-opposition. The opposing party states that they missed calendaring the opposition because there have been several motions filed and withdrawn, and they experienced some confusion that caused them to overlook this.
I am assuming the moving party is going to late-file a reply, but as of the time I am sending this, there is no reply showing in the court file. That is why I have highlighted "and reply" above. If the moving party does not file one before the hearing date, I recommend taking out this phrase and stating instead that the moving party may file and serve a reply by no later than July 23, 2026.
Since the denial of the motion heard on 5/14/26, the procedural posture of the civil case has changed somewhat. Judge Mayne granted permission for the filing of a FAC, but he conditioned it on a payment of fees and costs. There has been a dispute over the order, and Judge Mayne just set the matter for a further hearing on 7/8/26. Because the conditions have not been clarified, the FAC has not been filed into the case yet. Until it is officially on file, I can't really do a substantive analysis reviewing the civil pleading and comparing it to the pleading in the probate case. For the above reasons, I am recommending this continuance to July 30.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-000957 - ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; e) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Carmen Alicea Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; f) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
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?”
a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard after the Court's consideration of Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to be relieved from their representation herein.
CV-25-011430 - CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO - Defendants Ramiro Chavez Et Al.'s Demurrer to Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The moving papers fail to include a declaration demonstrating meet-and-confer efforts as required by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above, and Defendant shall submit a supplemental declaration demonstrating compliance with the subject code section. The supplemental declaration shall be submitted no later than July 15, 2026.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sony S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-005681 - DISCOVER BANK vs DAHL, SARAH - Plaintiff's Motion to Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of August 15, 2024, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.
Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1,599.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $5,913.62 [Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299]. Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court's ruling within five court days.
CV-25-005426 - SYNCHRONY BANK vs SARMIENTO, VIVIAN D - Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Judgment - GRANTED, unopposed. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of July 16, 2025, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement. Crediting Defendant with the sum of $650.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $4,469.72 [Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299].
CV-25-008086 - FUENTES, JOSE vs ON POINT GRADING AND PAVING INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint - GRANTED, unopposed. The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party. [Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473(a)(1)]. A liberal pleading amendment policy applies to amendments at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, absent prejudice to the adverse party.”[Tung v.
Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, review denied]. The Court finds that Plaintiff's proposed amendment arises from the same general set of facts as Plaintiff's original complaint, and that permitting the requested amened pleading will not cause any prejudice to Defendant. [Garcia v. Roberts (2009), 173 Cal.App.4th 900] Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. The Court will sign the Proposed Order.
CV-24-005909 - TORRES, MICHAEL vs GROVER LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC - Final Fairness Hearing - HEARING REQUIRED. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement. The Court also finds Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein.
In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec.384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for March 18, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement. Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than March 10, 2027, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement. At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. [Civ. Code Sec.1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b)]. The Court will sign the Proposed Order.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in