MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME S.B.S. TRUST DEED MOTION CLAIM FOR SURPLUS CVME2504565 NETWORK VS COUNTY OF FUNDS IN INTERPLEADER RIVERSIDE Tentative Ruling: Hearing Required
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MUCCIOLA VS CVME2504606 TEMEREALTY MOTION TO SET ASIDE CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: Motion is denied. Defendant has failed to attach a proposed responsive pleading.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME FUTURE INDUSTRIES, LLC CVME2506572 MOTION TO SET ASIDE VS CAVASOS Tentative Ruling: Motion is denied. Request for Sanctions denied. Defendants have failed to provide sufficient showing of Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect. No responsive pleading proposed either.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY CVRI2102037 LOPEZ VS REVLINE LLC APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Tentative Ruling: Motion is continued to July 23, 2026 8:30 am M301. There are still some issues with the proposed settlement to be addressed.
(CMO ¶ G.3.b.) Williams declaration does indicate defense counsel is not aware of any class, representative, or other collective action in any other court or jurisdiction asserting similar claims on behalf of an overlapping class. However, it does not indicate whether reasonable inquiry was made within the law firm.
(CMO ¶ G.3.c.iv.) Defense counsel has provided his declaration regarding a relationship with the proposed cy pres recipient. But Plaintiff’s counsel has not addressed in his declaration regarding his relationship with the proposed cy pres recipient.
(CMO ¶ G.3.d.ii.) Defendant is administering the settlement. However, it provides no declaration regarding its experience to carry out the administrator of funds and qualifications to do so competently. If Defendant is going to administer the settlement, it should submit a declaration regarding settlement administration as
required by the CMO.
(CMO ¶ G.3.g.) Defendant explains that it will require the class member to submit a claim form because it is concerned that, for most of the employees, it has been years since many of them worked for Revline and it wishes to make sure that they are sending checks to the actual employees who worked for them. Defendant agreed in the Amendment to Stipulation of Settlement (Exhibit 11) that the class members would receive a Claim Form, in the form attached to that document as Exhibit C. However, the settlement agreement and the proposed class notice, are internally inconsistent because it requires the class member who do not wish to be included in the settlement to opt-out by submitting a request for exclusion while it requires the class member who wish to be paid to opt-in by submitting a claim form.
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?”
This inconsistency should be addressed to eliminate any confusion. Plaintiff should choose either an opt-in or an opt-out settlement, but not both. Once this is determined, Plaintiff should ensure that the settlement agreement, proposed notice, and proposed order are amended to correctly reflect the manner in which settlement will be administered.
(CMO ¶ G.3.i.) Although the proposed notice indicates that the employer’s payroll taxes will be paid separately from the gross settlement, the settlement agreement or amendment to settlement do not indicate as such. The separate payment of payroll taxes should be incorporated into the settlement terms.
(CMO ¶ G.3.j.) The settlement agreement does not describe how individual settlement payments are allocated for tax purposes.
(CMO ¶ G.4.a-b.) Settlement agreement should not be included in the proposed order.
(CMO ¶ G.4.e – f.) The proposed order indicates only that Defendant, acting as the settlement administrator must submit a declaration to the court authenticating each objection but does not mention the same would be done for each exclusion form received.
(CMO ¶ G.4.j) The proposed order does not state that the administrator will send a stamped envelope to the claimant and provide a reminder notice within 30 days of mailing the notice.
(CMO ¶ G.3.k.i.) The notice also contains terms which are not readily understood by a layperson such as non-exempt employee, et al., et seq, etc.
(CMO ¶ G.3.k.ii.) The motion supported by Defendant’s declaration regarding the likely age, education, experience, and ability to read English; the declaration of Fraleigh only states that the parties have no information indicate that the class lacks English proficiency.
(CMO ¶ G.5.a.) The notice does not provide an estimate of the individual’s class recovery and the range of recovery.
(CMO ¶¶ G.7.a, G.8.a.)The objection and exclusion forms do not instruct that the
forms must be mailed to the settlement administrator by a specific date. (CMO ¶ G.8.c.) The exclusion form does state that PAGA payment would still be paid, but it does not explicitly state that exclusion from the class settlement will not exclude the aggrieved member from the PAGA settlement.
The proposed order, notice, exclusion, objection forms are not consistent with each other and the settlement agreement. Especially, the definition of the released parties has not been updated in the proposed notice. Plaintiff’s counsel should review the forms for any further inconsistencies.
Other issue: The settlement calls for attorney’s fees of 68% of the gross settlement amount. The Court has already noted previously that this amount is not justified. The realistic amount should be lower. The settlement agreement and proposed order, as well as the proposed class notice should be amended to reflect the reduced rate.