ANDERSON et al. v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

The Court agrees that plaintiff has brought this action in a county in which at least one of the defendants reside, which means venue is proper in Santa Cruz County. (§ 395, subd. (a).) Further, moving party has failed to meet his burden to establish that venue in Tuolumne County is required for the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (§ 397, subd. (c.).) The Court declines to impose sanctions against moving party or his attorney.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the medical board license verification record for defendant Kahn is granted. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c).)

No. 25CV01147

ANDERSON et al. v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO CRC 3.700(a)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

The unopposed motions are granted.

I. BACKGROUND AND MOTIONS

On December 25, 2024, there was a gas explosion and fire in Capitola. As a result, this class action case was filed, which asserts a private nuisance and seeks injunctive relief. The class was never certified. Additional related cases were filed by individuals who sustained damage in the accident. The parties participated in a mediation on December 19, 2025, and reached a global settlement. The parties agreed to settle the individual claims for monetary relief and the class action for equitable relief. PG&E agreed to take certain actions and make assurances concerning the remediation work done on the lines.

Pursuant to the global settlement agreement, plaintiffs seek court dismissal of the uncertified class action pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.770. Plaintiffs assert they have met the three requirements provided for in rule 3.770 and have provided the facts on which the party relies for dismissal; a clear statement of whether this is any consideration and a detailed description of this consideration.

Plaintiffs also move to seal Exhibits B and C to the Declaration of William Kershaw, which consists of the unredacted global settlement agreement and the allocation plan, both filed in support of the motion for dismissal. Plaintiffs argue that they, and PG&E, have an overriding

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

privacy interest in protecting the contents of the allocation plan and the global settlement agreement. Plaintiffs assert that confidentiality was one of the critical elements negotiated as part of the agreement. Plaintiffs argue the parties will be substantially prejudiced if the allocation plan and settlement agreement are made public because it would violate one of the conditions of the settlement. Plaintiffs emphasize that disclosure of these exhibits would adversely affect other pending litigation involving PG&E. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities “MPA” at p. 5.)

There is no opposition.

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court, rule 3.770 provides as follows:

“(a) A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval. The court may not grant a request to dismiss a class action if the court has entered judgment following final approval of a settlement. 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.

(b) Hearing on request for dismissal

The court may grant the request without a hearing. If the request is disapproved, notice of tentative disapproval must be sent to the attorneys of record. Any party may seek, within 15 calendar days of the service of the notice of tentative disapproval, a hearing on the request. If no hearing is sought within that period, the request for dismissal will be deemed denied.

(c) Notice to class of dismissal

If the court has certified the class, and notice of the pendency of the action has been provided to class members, notice of the dismissal must be given to the class in the manner specified by the court. If the court has not ruled on class certification, or if notice of the pendency of the action has not been provided to class members in a case in which such notice was required, notice of the proposed dismissal may be given in the manner and to those class members specified by the court, or the action may be dismissed without notice to the class members if the court finds that the dismissal will not prejudice them.”

Here, plaintiffs contend that the putative class action has not been certified and the case does not seek monetary relief. (Decl. of Kershaw at ¶ 3.) The putative class is defined at paragraph 93 of the amended class action complaint. The parties settled the equitable relief

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

portion of the class case (the consideration) with PG&E agreeing to “establish that the conditions of the utility lines under the Village were safe and in compliance with CPUC regulations (the objective of the Andersen class case) through a process whereby Representative Plaintiffs in attendance would be allowed to review photographs and documentation related to an exemplar trench where such remediation work has been performed.” (Decl. of Kershaw at ¶¶ 14-15.) 2 Plaintiffs attach a letter from PG&E Director of Distribution Integrity Management Program which indicates that all inadequate separation of gas and electric have been, or will be corrected, in the same manner as discussed and shown at a mediation of this matter ... as there is one remaining location that is currently undergoing corrections.” (Decl. of Kershaw, Ex.

A.) Plaintiffs contend this assurance is the objective of the stated injunctive relief. (Decl. of Kershaw at ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs also provided a copy, under seal, of the global settlement and monetary allocation plan. The requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.700 have been met and the motion is granted as requested. Individual claims of non-participating absent class members have not been released. (MPA at p. 11.) Because no class has been certified, nor have any putative class members received notice of the existence of the case, notice is not required under Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.770(c).

Plaintiffs also seek an order sealing the two exhibits attached to the declaration of Kershaw: the allocation plan and the global settlement agreement. “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) “The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)

Plaintiffs’ basis for seeking to seal the allocation plan and the settlement agreement is the existence of a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement as well as the importance the role of confidentiality played in settling the case. “[A] contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of [California Rules of Court,] rule [2.550].” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283) Plaintiffs

2 Monetary restitution for individual plaintiff cases was also accomplished at the mediation, including for the representative plaintiffs who made individual claims.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

contend that the parties to the agreement have an overriding privacy interest in protecting the allocation plan and settlement agreement. The prejudice claimed is that PG&E could decide to terminate the settlement if the motion to seal is not granted because it was one of their primary terms of settlement. Plaintiffs assert that PG& E would be adversely impacted if disclosure is permitted because of “other pending litigation arising out of these circumstances and [could] undermine the public’s interest in PG&E’s on-the-record assurance that crossing utility lines under Capitola Village are not in compliance with CPUC Regulations and internal PG&E guidelines.” (MPA at p. 5-6.)

Here, there is a public interest in promoting settlement. In this case, confidentiality is a key condition of settlement agreed to by all parties and therefore settlement would be hampered if the motion is not granted. The sealing is limited to the settlement agreement and allocation plan. There is no opposition. Plaintiffs have shown there is no less restrictive means and the parties have an overriding privacy interest in the documents; therefore, the motion is granted.

No. 23CV02345

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION v. TROUT GULCH, et al.

DEFENDANT BETTY 41st, LLC’S MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

The motion to file a second amended cross-complaint is granted. The motion to compel is granted as discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (“plaintiff” or “RTC”) filed this action for quiet title. The property at issue is in unincorporated Aptos which plaintiff contends forms a part of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. Plaintiff acquired the Branch Line in 2012. The complaint asserts that plaintiff has held and now holds a fee simple interest in the subject property based upon a document from December 30, 1876 and recorded January 27, 1877 between Jose Arano and the Santa Cruz Railroad Company (“the Arano Deed”). Plaintiff asserts its claim of title is also supported by its title insurance policy which recognized the property as a fee interest. (Compl. at ¶ 6.)