Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling. Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.
Facts Common to (1) through (6)
In this habitability and negligence matter, Plaintiffs Clubb and Nunez sue Defendants Orchard Square 79, LLC, Daniel Bailey and Marlene Bailey. The Court notes Daniel and Marlene represent themselves at this point in the case. A motion to withdraw as counsel as to Orchard Square 79, LLC is set for May 28, 2026, 8:30 am, D1.
Relevant here, Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for production of documents on August 22, 2025. As of the date of the filing of these motions, no responses have been received. Plaintiffs seek to compel initial responses and sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per motion.
In opposition, Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC states that responsive documents were sent December 1, 2025, but notes that no client verification with respect to a response to requests for production has been provided. As such, the Court does not find the motion to compel responses moot. The responses remain unverified. Production of the documents themselves does not satisfy the discovery requirements.
Authority and Analysis (1) through (6) - Requests for Production
The general rule is that unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Based on Defendants' failures to respond to the first sets of requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Defendants provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiffs' first sets of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiffs shall give notice.
Sanctions
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will impose total sanctions as follows:
$470 against Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
$470 against Defendant Daniel Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
$470 against Defendant Marlene Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.
If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing Case No.: VCU314801 Date: May 21, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion as indicted herein and preliminarily approve the settlement, as modified herein; to set the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1. Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.
Background
Facts
At the prior hearing, the Court continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to calculating the lodestar, information regarding the presently incurred costs of counsel and the amount of the administrative costs. On May 15, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration addressing these issues.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Attorneys' fees and costs no greater than of 33.3% of the gross settlement fund of $650,000 or $216,666.67 are sought in this matter. Counsel has utilized the percentage of common fund methodology as well as provided adequate lodestar information to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request. Here, counsel indicate the firm has spent 121.7 hours at rates ranging from $1,227 to $277, resulting in a base lodestar of $106,125.90. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.2.)
The Court notes that these rates are already higher than what is typically "... prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The Court, therefore, adjusts the hourly rates as follows: Name | Stated Hourly Rate | Approved Hourly Rate | Hours | Total | Gary M. Klinger | $1,019 | $800 | 16.8 | $13,440 | David K. Lietz |
$1,227 | $900 | 2.6 | $2,340 | John J. Nelson | $902 | $700 | 61.2 | $42,840 | Dean Meyer | $581 | $400 | 4.2 | $1,680 | Mariya Weekes | $1,019 | $800 | 4 | $3,200 | CJ Cuneo |
$1,019 | $800 | 20.2 | $16,160 | Michelle Benvenuto | $277 | $150 | 4 | $600 | Sandra Passanisi | $277 | $150 | 3.9 | $585 | Kendal McLaughlin | $277 | $150 | 2.9 | $435 | Amanda Mkmanga |
$277 | $150 | .1 | $15 | Ashley Tyrrell | $277 | $150 | 1.1 | $165 | Heather Sheflin | $277 | $150 | .7 | $105 | Adjusted Base Lodestar: | $81,565 |
To award $216,666.67 in attorneys' fees, therefore, the Court would need to apply a multiplier of 2.65 The Court typically permits a maximum lodestar multiple of 1.5 in these cases. The Court has reviewed the declarations of counsel in support of what is now an additional 1.15 multiplier, but, in its discretion, rules that the additional.5 awarded adequately takes into account the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented. (See In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1052 quoting Thayer v.
Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833) Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, the Court has an independent responsibility to review the attorney fee provision of the settlement agreement and award an amount that it determines to be reasonable. (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.)
Therefore, the Court will preliminarily approve $122,347.50, equal to 1.5 times the current lodestar. Counsel has also provided the current costs expended in amounts of $2,028.38 (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.2.) The Court preliminarily approves costs not to exceed $5,000.00.
Claims Administrator
The Court preliminary approves EisnerAmper as the claims administrator for this class action. The supplemental declaration of Nelson indicates estimated administrative costs of $49,927.23. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.3.)
Claim Form
As counsel notes in the supplemental declaration, a claim form is required to obtain a portion of the settlement fund. (Supplemental Declaration of Nelson P.4.)
Summary
Therefore, Plaintiff's deductions from the gross settlement of $650,000 are preliminarily approved as follows: Preliminarily Approved Attorney Fees (1.5 Lodestar): | $122,347.50 | Preliminarily Approved Attorney Costs (up to): | $5,000.00 | Preliminarily Approved Payment to Plaintiff: | $1,500.00 | Preliminarily Approved Administrator Costs | $ 49,927.23 | Preliminarily Approved Settlement Amount | $471,225.27 |
Therefore, the Court preliminarily approves the settlement as indicated herein. The Court sets the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1. If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Visalia-County Civic Center