KELLY JONES ET AL VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24617486 - September 4, 2025 Hearing date: September 4, 2025 Case number: CGC24617486 Case title: KELLY JONES ET AL VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. Case Number: | | CGC24617486 | Case Title: | | KELLY JONES ET AL VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. | Court Date: | | 2025-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Request For Dismissal [C.R.C. 3.770] | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 4, 2025, line 5. PLAINTIFFS KELLY JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS, DIAMOND QUAN, CHRISTINA ZINZUN'S Request For Dismissal [C.R.C. 3.770].

Plaintiffs Kelly Jones Diamond Quan and Christina Zinzun's unopposed request for dismissal California Rules of Court, rule 3.770 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs seek a court order under California Rules of Court rule 3.770. Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information or analysis. "Requests for dismissal must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal and must describe the consideration in detail." (California Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a).)

The Marker Declaration does not describe the consideration given at all, let alone "in detail." Nor does the Marker Declaration clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for dismissal of the class claims (even if without prejudice). Nor is there any analysis in the memorandum of points and authorities demonstrating Plaintiffs received no consideration for dismissal of the class claims, which generally will require an analysis of the individual claims, their value, the settlement amount, the relation between these figures; the attorney's fees recovery and whether it demonstrates consideration for abandoning the class claims.

The court's adjudication will likely focus on the specific terms of the settlement agreement; at least the relevant provisions must be before the court and part of the public record on the motion. The court declines the parties' invitation to review the settlement without public access.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.