Case Management Conference
In the meantime, on 5/2/2022, the parties stipulated to arbitrate Plaintiffs’ claims and to stay this action, “including the PAGA action,” until this matter is arbitrated. The Court entered the stipulated order to stay this action on 5/2/2022. (ROA #56.)
On 3/20/2026, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case. (ROA #145.) On 3/25/2026, the Court took notice of Mical v. Prime Healthcare La Palma, LLC, OCSC Case No. 2022-01292457, as a related case. (ROA #149.)
On 1/21/2026, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Approve a PAGA Settlement, and submitted for the Court’s review the Joint Stipulation of PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims (“Settlement Agreement”) and proposed notice/cover letter to aggrieved employees that will accompany the payment to them. The parties seek the Court’s approval of this settlement while the arbitration of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims is still pending. The motion seeks approval of the parties’ proposed settlement of Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims for the non-reversionary gross settlement amount (GSA) of $300,000.
The Court concludes that an attorneys’ fee award totaling $166,666.67 or 1/3 of the GSA, constituting a 0.13 multiplier of the lodestar amount based on counsel’s proffered evidence, is fair, adequate, and reasonable for a settlement of this size, including considering the action’s contingent nature and the results achieved.
The Court also concludes that a litigation cost award totaling $51,030.09, which is the amount requested in the motion, is supported by counsel’s proffered evidence.
Further, the Court has identified the following issues with the moving papers, which must be addressed by Plaintiffs’ counsel before approval can be granted:
1. Counsel is reminded that CRC 2.256(b)(3) requires all filings to be text searchable when technologically feasible.
2. The Settlement Agreement includes an escalator clause. But this is a motion to have the settlement fully approved, and so a specific GSA must be approved upon the granting of this motion. At this point, the parties should know or be able to determine the number of Aggrieved Employees and qualifying pay periods based on the PAGA Period.
3. A direct release by the State of California should not be included, since the State is not directly participating in this lawsuit. Instead, this provision of the settlement agreement should be amended to read: “Plaintiffs, on behalf of the State of California, and each Aggrieved Employee . . . .” (italics added for emphasis).
4. Plaintiffs’ counsel must attest as to whether there is a fee-splitting agreement with any other counsel, or confirm there is none.
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?”
Plaintiffs’ counsel must also provide a revised notice/cover letter to aggrieved employees that will accompany the payment to them, with the following revisions:
108 Mical vs. Prime Healthcare La Palma, LLC
2022-01292457
Case Management Conference 109 Jamal vs. DB Glboal, Inc.
2024-01396853 Motion for Approval of Preliminary Class Settlement
Plaintiff Rima Jamal’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to September 17, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 in order to give Class Counsel an opportunity to address the issues identified below.
This is a putative wage-and-hour class action and PAGA matter.
On 4/30/2024, Plaintiff Rima Jamal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Defendants DB Glboal [sic], Inc. and Right at Home, LLC, alleging various Labor Code wage-and-hour violations and unfair business practices. (ROA #2.)
On 6/26/2024, Plaintiff filed a form Amendment to the Complaint, correcting the name of the first defendant to DB Global, Inc. (ROA #25.) On 7/2/2024, the Court entered the order approving the amendment. (ROA #26.)
On 7/9/2024, Defendant DB Global, Inc. dba Right at Home and Defendant Right at Home, LLC answered. (ROA #31, 34.)
On 5/13/2025, the Court took notice that Plaintiff’s PAGA action against the same defendants is a related case: Jamal v. DB Global, Inc., OCSC Case No. 2024-01411993. (ROA #51.) That action was filed on 7/5/2024, alleging a single cause of action for PAGA penalties. (ROA #2 in Case No. 2024- 01411993.) On 9/4/2024, Defendant DB Global, Inc. dba Right at Home answered. (ROA #15 in Case No. 2024-01411993.)
On 1/28/2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action and PAGA Settlement in the instant case, and submitted the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation to Resolve Class Action and PAGA Claims (“Settlement Agreement”) and Class Notice for the Court’s review. The motion seeks preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement of Plaintiff’s class and PAGA claims for the non-reversionary gross settlement amount (GSA) of $300,000. The GSA includes $30,000 allocated for PAGA penalties.