Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2018-00064518-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00064518-CU-OE-CTL VILLA VS. RENTY LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 07/13/2023

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is ordered OFF CALENDAR. No moving papers were filed.

Instead, Plaintiffs filed a 'supplemental' brief in support of their previous motion for preliminary approval of a different class action settlement and a 'supplemental' declaration. (ROA 276-277.) The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement on August 18, 2023. (ROA 263.) The court is not aware of any legal authority that permits Plaintiffs to file 'supplemental' papers to a denied motion.

To the extent Plaintiffs 'supplemental' papers are a possible effort to renew Plaintiffs' prior motion, it is clear they cannot meet the statutory requirements for a renewed motion. 'A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in part... may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law....' (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) Plaintiffs are clearly not seeking the same order, because in their 'supplemental' brief they are requesting approval of a settlement agreement that has different terms than the one that was at issue in their prior motion.

To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to seek the court's approval of a settlement agreement with different terms than the one that was at issue in their prior motion, Plaintiffs were required to make a new motion that meets all the usual requirements of a motion, e.g., a notice, motion, memorandum, and supporting papers. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1112(a).) More substantively, considering the new settlement agreement on the basis of the current record would put the court in the position of having to speculate how the agreement meets the fundamental fairness considerations for preliminary approval of any class action settlement.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042390  19