Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL SAUL VS OTAY LANDFILL INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/22/2023

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is CONTINUED to October 6, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. (ROA 51.) At the outset, Plaintiff late-filed her counsel's declaration in support of this motion just three days before this hearing and the court has not had a sufficient opportunity to review it. Plaintiff's counsel is admonished to timely file all future papers. The court has discretion to refuse to consider late-filed papers. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1300(d).) More substantively, the court has significant concerns regarding the settlement.

The parties have agreed the administration of the settlement is to be conducted by class counsel rather than by a neutral third-party administrator. There was no briefing about this in Plaintiff's memorandum of points and authorities. The court requests that Plaintiff address the propriety and the reasons for this arrangement in a supplemental brief. The court also requests that Plaintiff obtain an estimate of costs from a third-party administrator so that the court may better evaluate the available options regarding administration of this settlement.

The court is concerned that the proposed settlement places undue burdens on class members who wish to object, as listed in the proposed class notice. This court does not approve requirements for objectors to submit to deposition, nor does it permit requirements that objectors separately serve the administrator, class counsel, and Defendant's counsel with the written objection. The court also will not approve a requirement that class members provide 'a detailed list of any other objections' to class settlements. Finally, the court does not sign class notices. The parties are directed to meet and confer on these issues and submit revised documents as appropriate.

The court is also concerned with the proposed claim form, which requires settlement class members to declare under penalty of perjury that they have not suffered any personal injuries caused by Defendant, and that they will defend and indemnify Defendant from lien claims. The class notice contains a similar improper provision. The court is not inclined to permit this as it is unduly one-sided and unfair to class members. This case does not involve claims of personal injuries and the proposed release expressly carves out personal injury claims. All counsel are directed to meet and confer on this issue to determine whether they remain agreeable to settlement excluding this provision.

Plaintiff's memorandum did not explain to the court whether the settlement is intended to be non-reversionary, and if so, what the parties propose to be done with any uncashed remainder. The Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950854  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SAUL VS OTAY LANDFILL INC [E-FILE]  37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL court requests further briefing on this issue as well.

Plaintiff is to submit a supplemental memorandum of no more than 10 pages, along with a supplemental declaration summarizing the meet and confer efforts and attaching any proposed amended settlement documents and the estimate obtained from a third-party administrator on or before September 25, 2023.

The court further orders the September 8, 2023 status conference VACATED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950854  10