DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV07189·sonoma·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

Santos v. Chevron USA Inc

Motion for leave to amend complaint

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Next hearing
Mar 9, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMagdalena Santos
DefendantChevron USA Inc

Ruling

Landresse filed this action on October 25, 2024, against Defendant Blackpoint Management Inc. dba Vintage Pointe Apartments (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges general negligence and premises liability based upon an injury sustained to Landresse on Defendant’s property. Landresse was married to Graff. Accordingly, Graff is Landresse’s successor in interest. (Roth decl., ¶¶2-5, Exhibits 1, 2.)

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.

4. 24CV07189, Santos v. Chevron USA Inc

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Plaintiff Magdalena Santos (“Plaintiff”) for leave to amend her complaint. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy dictates the court’s discretion be applied liberally to allow amendments. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939.) It is only when there is prejudice to the other side that cannot be alleviated by imposing conditions on the moving party that leave should not be allowed. (Hirsa v. Sup.Ct. (Vickers) (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490.)

The trial set for May 8, 2026, was vacated. The case management conference to reset this matter for trial has not yet been scheduled. No opposition has been filed showing prejudice. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file and serve the proposed amended complaint within 10 days of this order. In addition, this court hereby sets a case management conference for March 9, 2027, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept.

16. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of this court.

5. 24CV07499, Solorio v. It’s Just Us, LLC

Plaintiff Esmeralda Valerio Solorio (“Plaintiff”) moves on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated for an order: (1) Granting class certification of the Settlement Class, solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382; (2) Preliminarily approving the CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”); (3) Appointing counsel for Plaintiff, Haulk & Herrera LLP, as Class Counsel; (4) Appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; (5) Approving the use of the proposed notice procedure and related notice form; (6) Approving ILYM Group, Inc. as the third-party administrator; (7) Directing that notice be mailed to the Settlement Class; and, (8) Scheduling a hearing date for motions for final approval of class action settlement and awards of attorneys’ fees and costs.

I. Complaint

This action was filed on December 11, 2024. A First Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2025, and a Second Amended Complaint was filed on September 2, 2025. The Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties for nonpayment of wages; violation of business and professions code section 17200; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; retaliation in violation of the healthy workplace, healthy families act of 2014; and violation of the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

The allegations are based upon Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant It’s Just Us, LLC dba Grossman’s Nosheri & Bar. Plaintiff worked as a baker from September 2023 until her termination 2

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