ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO

2. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., shall file and serve a supplemental declaration: (a) confirming expiration of the settlement check-cashing period; (b) identifying the total number and dollar amount of checks negotiated and uncashed; (c) confirming the amount of residual funds, if any, distributed to Jessica's House pursuant to the settlement and Final Approval Judgment; and (d) confirming completion of all settlement administration and distributions.

3. No later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date, Class Counsel shall file and serve an amended proposed judgment and proposed final accounting order that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.5 and includes all information required by Government Code section 68520, including but not limited to: (a) the identity of the cy pres recipient; (b) the amount of residual funds distributed to the cy pres recipient(s); (c) the total amount distributed to class members; (d) the total amount of attorney fees and costs awarded; and (e) any other information required for transmission to the Judicial Council pursuant to Government Code section 68520. The Court retains jurisdiction to supervise implementation of the settlement and distribution of residual settlement funds as provided in the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Person Most Knowledgeable - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect Property - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect Vehicle - CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

a-c) The Court has reviewed the moving papers and concludes that the disputes appear capable of informal resolution through further meaningful meet-and-confer efforts. The Court finds the requested discovery is generally directed toward issues central to the action and that substantial overlap exists among the requested inspections, physical evidence examinations, PMQ depositions, and related document production. The Court further finds that the record reflects ongoing communications between counsel concerning scheduling and coordination of discovery. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES all three motions to September 17, 2026, at 8:30 am Department 24.

No later than 10 days from the date of this hearing, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in good faith, either in person or by videoconference, concerning: 1. Dates for inspection of the subject property; 2. Dates for inspection of the subject vehicle and end-sign assembly; 3. Dates for PMQ depositions; 4. A schedule for PMQ-related document production; and 5. Any remaining issues that may be resolved without further court intervention.

No later than five court days before the continued hearing, counsel shall file a joint status report advising the Court whether the motions have been resolved in whole or in part and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication. The Court reserves ruling on the merits of the motions and all requests for sanctions.

CV-25-009148 - PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Henry Ernest Perez and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,430.00 - CONTINUED to September 9, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

The Court has reviewed the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supporting declarations. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant's entitlement to take Plaintiff's deposition and expressly acknowledges that Defendant is entitled to that discovery. The parties' dispute instead appears to center on deposition scheduling, the sufficiency of the parties' meet-and-confer efforts, and whether sanctions are warranted. Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to provide any available dates despite multiple requests over several months. Plaintiff contends he timely objected to two unilaterally noticed depositions, invited further meet-and-confer efforts, and that defense counsel never attempted a telephonic conference before seeking Court intervention.