PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT OF VNH BUILDERS
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 13, 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.
No. 25CV04159
BAJO-ISLAS v. ROSSETTAS ENTERPRISES, INC.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT
The motion is granted.
The Court finds that the settlement falls within a range of reasonableness and is presumptively valid; appears to be a product of serious, informed and non-collusive negotiations; and has no obvious deficiencies. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement; conditionally certifies the class; and approves the class notice as to form and content provided the Notice is issued in both English and Spanish languages.
Counsel should appear to set a final hearing on the question of whether the proposed class action settlement, class counsel’s fees and expenses, the class representative’s enhancement award, and the administrator’s fees and costs should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to the members of the settlement class.
No. 25CV00917
JAMBA CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. VNH BUILDERS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT OF VNH BUILDERS
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
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?”
The motion to strike the answer and cross-complaint is granted.
This is a construction contract dispute. Jamba Construction, Inc. (“Jamba”) filed this complaint against defendants, including VNH Builders, a Joint Venture, (“VNH”) alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, common counts, prompt payment penalty, recovery of money due on stop notice, and claim on payment bond. VNH filed an answer and cross-complaint through counsel on June 3, 2025. VNH’s counsel then sought to be relieved, and the Court granted this request on February 23, 2026. VNH is currently unrepresented.
On April 26 2026, Jamba filed this motion, seeking to strike VNH’s answer and its crosscomplaint and for sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00. Jamba asserts the Court should strike VNH’s answer and cross-complaint because it is a corporate entity without representation which is not permitted and it has adequate time to secure new counsel. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141.) There is no opposition.
On May 6, defendant Santa Cruz County Public Works requested entry of default against VNH. Default was entered on May 6, 2026.
The court may, on a motion to strike made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 435 or at any time in its discretion and on terms it deems proper, take the following action:
(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading [see Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10 (immaterial allegation and irrelevant matter); or
(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436)
It is undisputed that VNH is a corporate entity, and “under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)
At the February 23, 2026 hearing, the Court set a further case management conference regarding identification of counsel for VNH. At the April 13, 2026, hearing, no one from VNH appeared and plaintiff’s counsel told the Court he would be filing a motion to strike the answer. This motion, and the motion to be relieved, were served on VNH, both with no opposition. Further, VNH failed to respond to Santa Cruz County Public Work Department’s crosscomplaint and the Court entered VNH’s default on May 6, 2026. VNH’s failure to obtain new legal representation and its failure to participate in this matter or oppose this motion demonstrate
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
it does not intend to litigate this matter and therefore, its answer and cross-complaint are stricken. The Court declines to award the requested sanctions.
No. 24CV01806
FARR v. RUSH
PARTITION REFEREE AMY HARRINGTON’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REFEREE REPORT AND REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR APPROVAL OF REFEREE FEES AND COSTS
The unopposed motion is granted.
Amy Harrington was appointed referee in this matter on September 16, 2025, with authority to partition the property by sale. The Court approved the sale on April 13, 2026. Harrington recommends reimbursement to plaintiff in the amount of $303,826.30 to be deducted from defendant’s share of the net proceeds of the sale, totaling $499,922.78, which includes $50,017.01 for mortgage, tax, and insurance payments made from May 2025 through February 2026. Harrington asserts plaintiff did not provide documentation reflecting the monthly HELOC payments. [Plaintiff had requested reimbursement in the amount of $355,286.74. Defendant did not request offsets or credits.] Harrington’s requested fees in the amount of $12,367.50 based upon more than 25.70 hours of work at the rate of $475.00/hour appear reasonable and are also granted.
Counsel for plaintiff filed two declarations, requesting that Harrington “submit an analysis and recommendation to the court for distribution of the equity produced in the anticipated sale of the Property ... .” (Decl. of Siegel at ¶ 8.) The parties should appear to provide input to the Court as to whether a supplemental report is needed from Harrington to address this issue.