DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2021-01197621·orange·ComplexCivil·Final Accounting
Hearing 18 days agoCONTINUED

Burns v. Power Paragon, Inc.

Final Accounting

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
CX102
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 10, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPatrick Burns
DefendantPower Paragon, Inc.

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS 8/06/2026 02:00 PM

100 Medero vs. Norada Capital Management

2024-01445239 Case Management Conference 101 Burns vs. Power Paragon, Inc.

2021-01197621 Final Accounting

Plaintiff Patrick Burns’s Final Accounting hearing is CONTINUED to September, 10, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 to confirm that the amount of the uncashed funds after the check-cashing deadline have been delivered to the cy pres recipient, that the administrator’s work is complete, and that the Court’s file thus may be closed. All supporting papers must be filed at least sixteen (16) court days before the continued hearing date. If a supplemental report cannot be filed by this deadline, counsel must request a continuance. Failure to request a continuance may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions.

Additionally, the Court notes that the Court’s previous signed order at ROA #150 contains a typo in ¶ 19 as to the named of the Plaintiff to whom the Class Representative Service Payment was awarded. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to submit an amended proposed order to correct this mistake within 5 court days of this ruling.

The Court also notes that a final “judgment” has not been entered in this case, as the order signed and entered by the Court on 7/30/2025 at ROA #50 is not a “judgment.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to submit a proposed judgment that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.5 and Government Code section 68520, subdivision (a) within 5 court days of this ruling.

Upon entry of and pursuant to the amended order and the requested Judgment, the Court will order the administrator to make the cy pres distribution contemplated by this settlement consistent with CCP 384.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant.

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