DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV-03479·merced·Civil·Civil
Hearing 10 days agoDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Diana Contreras Rodriguez vs.LE HOMES, et al

Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDiana Contreras Rodriguez
DefendantLE HOMES

Ruling

Third, the proposed Notice of Settlement is deficient. Although the proposed notice mentions the Administrator’s website, it does not have a section reserved for the website to be inserted. For example, the last page of the proposed notice includes a line for the Administrator’s email address, mailing address, and telephone number, but there is no line reserved for the Administrator’s website.

Accordingly, the court denies the motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement, without prejudice.

23CV-03479 Diana Contreras Rodriguez vs.LE HOMES, et al

Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel

The motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Counsel failed to use mandatory form MC-052 for the attorney declaration. (See Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

Counsel is able to refile the motion using the correct mandatory forms.

23CV-04368 Tony Borba, et al. vs County of Merced, et al.

Objection to Report of Discovery Dispute Conference Re Commencement of Depositions by Defendants

Appearance required.

25CV-00872 Virginia Allen vs Richard Vargas, Junior

Motion for Interlocutory Judgment for Partition by Sale

The motion for interlocutory judgment for partition by sale is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Partition of Real Property Act applies to all partition actions where title to the property is held in tenancy in common, where no agreement exists binding all cotenants which governs the form of partition of the property, and the action was filed after January 1, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc. § 874.311.)

The court finds that sufficient evidence exists to make the threshold finding that title to the property at 9304 North Winton Way, Winton, California (the “Property”) is held in tenancy in common by Plaintiff and Defendant. As a prima facie showing of the applicability of the PRPA has been made, subject to the merits of the case and defenses raised by both parties, this court must first comply with the terms of the PRPA before reaching the merits of the partition action.

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