DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVRI2304424·riverside·Civil·Class Action
Hearing todayCONTINUED

RUIZ vs ECO FARMS AVOCADOS, INC.

Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
1
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$6,250$6,650

Parties

PlaintiffRuiz
PlaintiffOrozco
DefendantEco Farms Avocados, Inc.

Ruling

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME RUIZ vs ECO FARMS CVRI2304424 HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL AVOCADOS, INC. Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested:

1. Need proposed order/judgment (CMO ¶ H.7-15)

2. Papers have conflicting numbers on settlement administration costs--$6,250 (moving points and authorities and Edwards Decl) and $6,650.

3. What will be done with funds from uncashed checks—need to include in proposed order/judgment.

4. Are fees to be split among law firms and did Ruiz and Orozco agree to the split?

5. What amounts will plaintiff’s receive from the class/PAGA settlement in addition to the service awards? CMO ¶ H.2(e).

6. No declaration from the settlement administrator. CMO ¶ H.5.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CHAMBERS vs PACIFIC DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED CVRI2602804 COAST POOLS, INC. COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: In this construction defect action, defendant Nautilus Insurance Company demurs to the first amended complaint on the grounds that there is a misjoinder of parties, the FAC is uncertain, and each causes of action fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs argue that the breach of contract, disgorgement, and negligence causes of action are not asserted against Nautilus.

They argue that although a third-party claimant cannot normally sue a tortfeasor’s insurer to obtain insurance benefits, they are not doing that, instead their fraud, Unruh Act and declaratory relief claims are based on Nautilus’ claims history and improper acts related to it. Nautilus responds that plaintiffs admit they cannot maintain a direct action for insurance coverage or claims handling and the FAC alleges no harm other than this (and that the opposition relies on facts not alleged in the FAC).

Deny request for judicial notice. Overrule demurrer based on uncertainty. Sustain demurrer to first (breach of contract), second (disgorgement), and fourth (negligence) causes of action without leave to amend. Sustain demurrer as to third (fraud), fifth (Unruh Act) and sixth (declaratory relief) causes of action with 30 days’ leave to amend.

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