CAL #

CASE #

RULING

1. Chapman v. Amcord re Plaintiff James Troy

03CC00514

Off Calendar

2. Terry v. Musicland Stores Corp.

03CC00407

Continued to 8/22/08

3. Orange County Water District v. Northrop Corporation

04CC00715

1. Demurrer by Plaintiff OC Water District to Northrop’s 2^nd Amended Cross-Complaint: the demurrer to the 1^st & 2^nd causes of action is overruled based upon H & S § 25363 (e). The ruling is not inconsistent with the ruling on Boeing’s previous demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint  as Northrop amended the Cross-Complaint and the Second Amended Cross-Complaint is pleaded in compliance with H & S § 25363(e). The demurrer to the 5^th through 10^th causes of action is overruled. Answer in 15 days. Responding Party shall give notice.

2. Demurrer by Metropolitan Water District of So Cal to the 2^nd Amended Cross-Complaint of Northrop:  the demurrer by Metropolitan Water District to the 1^st & 2^nd causes of action is overruled. The Second Amended Cross-Complaint sets forth sufficient allegations against MWD in paragraphs 5-8, 39 and 47-55. Answer within 15 days. Responding Party shall give notice.

4. Burton v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.

30-2007 00031558

Motion by Burton for Order Compelling Responses to Requests to Produce Set Two and Request for Sanctions: the motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion is comprised of vague generalities which do not provide the court with authority or a basis to allow this merits based discovery prior to certification of the class. Plaintiff does not meet his burden to show how these “budgets” are required to develop information and evidence for the certification motion stage which is where we are in this case now. The objections as to the requests being vague and ambiguous, overbroad and those based upon confidential & proprietary information are sustained. All other objections are overruled, especially “assumes facts not in evidence” which is an inappropriate and specious objection to discovery requests. It should be saved for trial. There is no “evidence” submitted for determination yet. Sanctions are denied. Responding Party shall give notice.

5. Baker v. City of La Habra

06CC00046

Motion by City and Plaintiffs for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class: the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved provided some minor issues can be resolved.

(1) The Court needs an explanation of the difference between ¶ 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 – Why the difference in dates and specific directions given in 2.5.2 that are not included in 2.5.1?

(2) Who is the settlement administrator?  The best arrangement is for a third party administrator.

(3) ¶ 2.8.4 requires Defendant to pay counsel their fees within 10 days of the effective date while class members get paid either 15 or 30 days [see above re 2.5.1 & 2.5.2] after the effective date. Should not counsel get paid after final approval and after or at the same time the class gets paid?

(4) There is nothing in the notice of claim concerning exclusion of persons who signed a release with the city or on whose Form 367 the box marked collision was checked. That should be included in the ¶ with the class definition shouldn’t it?

(5) ¶ VII fails to include the address of the court or any instructions for any objecting party to file the original objections with the court so the court does not have to wait for Defendant or the administrator to notify the court about any objections.

(6) Page 5 in ¶ XII should read” If you are the person to whom the notice is intended but the address as shown above is incorrect or your name has changed, you should submit a claim form to be assured of receiving your check.”

(7) ¶ 9 of the order allows any class member who did not receive the notice of claim prior to 15 days before the final hearing date additional time until the date of the final hearing to object or opt out. This should be concisely explained in the notice under both the sections explaining opting out and objecting.

(8) The parties should recommend a date for hearing for Final Approval and approval of attorney fees and incentive payments.

6. Cole v. Synergy Financial Management

07CC01235

Motion by Attorney Mary E. Lynch to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Synergy Financial: continued to    8-1-08 to allow counsel to file the proof of service or in the alternative to 9-05-08 if the motion was not actually personally served on the clients. The only proof of service is for service on other counsel. There is no proof of service showing service on Synergy. Counsel should contact the clerk at 714-568-4817 to confirm which date is appropriate to perfect service.