Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
19. The notice letter should state the url for the settlement administrator’s website and should also state that the settlement administrator will post the judgment on the website for at least 180 days.
20. The settlement administrator identified in the notice letter is not the settlement administrator that submitted a declaration to the court. ROA 518.
As to the proposed order and judgment (ROA 517):
21. The proposed order and judgment should be revised consistent with the above.
22. Counsel information should be removed from the caption page.
23. The proposed order and judgment should state defendant is funding the settlement in two installments.
24. The parties must submit a Word version of the proposed order.
25. The proposed order and judgment should include a statement that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval is continued to October 22, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement shall be submitted, rather than an “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review of the documents. The parties shall provide redlined copies of any revised documents (e.g., revised settlement agreement, revised notice, revised proposed order).
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service.
No earlier hearing date is available for this motion.
14 Torres-Sanabria v. Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement National Instruments Corporation, et al. “Because an aggrieved employee's action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 functions as a substitute for 2023-01369943 an action brought by the government itself, a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986
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?”
ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.
The court has reviewed and considered the papers filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for approval of a $90,000 PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments:
1. Were the motion papers submitted to the LWDA? Plaintiff must file with the court a proof of service identifying the specific documents served on the LWDA, when plaintiff served the documents, and how service was effected.
2. Plaintiff filed an overlong brief without obtaining leave of court. Plaintiff should not do so again. Failure to comply with applicable court rules may result in sanctions and/or an order striking the overlong brief.
As to the settlement:
3. The parties should provide the high and low individual PAGA payments.
4. Plaintiff should state his total compensation to be received (including for any individual claims).
5. The “Released Parties” provision in paragraph 1.26 is overbroad. It includes unrelated, ambiguous unidentified and/or “indirect third parties such as “members,” “agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, partners, investors, . . . franchisees, administrators, . . . affiliates, . . . staffing agencies, and joint venturers, and all persons acting under, by, through, or in concert with any of them, and each of them.”
6. The phrase “Error! Reference source not found” in paragraph 2.1 should be revised. The same phrase appears in paragraph 11 of the Lazar Declaration (ROA 102).
7. The phrase “the State of California and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency” in paragraphs 5 and 5.1 should be replaced with “and the Aggrieved Employees.”
8. The phrase “but not limited to” in paragraph 5.1 should be removed.
9. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorneys’ fees totaling one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount. Absent unique circumstances, the court is unlikely to approve an attorneys’ fees award that exceeds 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount in connection with this modest settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel should address in the supplemental filings whether any such unique circumstances exist here.
10. Plaintiff’s counsel must submit copies of time records, billing statements, or other records contemporaneously documenting the work performed and time spent detailing
the specific tasks performed on the case, the time spent on each task, and the individual(s) who performed the task.
11. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks litigation costs in the amount of $15,454.46. Bibiyan Decl. (ROA 96) ¶ 38 & Ex.
1. Postage, FedEx and copying charges are not recoverable and should be removed. Plaintiff’s counsel should submit invoices substantiating the mediation and “expert date consultant” fees. Plaintiff’s counsel should also explain why costs totaling approximately 17% of the gross settlement amount are reasonable for this case.
12. Plaintiff’s counsel must disclose whether counsel has any fee-splitting arrangement with any other counsel, including the exact percentages, or confirm none exists.
13. The parties (plaintiff and defendants) should state in declarations filed with the court whether, after making reasonable inquiry, they are aware of any class, representative or other collective action in any other court that asserts claims similar to those asserted in the action being settled. If any such actions are known to exist, the declaration(s) shall also state the name and case number of any such case and the procedural statues of the case, and describe the impact of the settlement on that case.
As to the notice letter:
14. The notice letter should be revised consistent with the above.
15. The notice letter should (i) provide an explanation of PAGA; (ii) describe the factual allegations of the operative complaint; (iii) describe the scope of released claims; (iv) state the gross settlement amount, net settlement amount, and the portions allocated to the LWDA and the aggrieved employees; (v) explain how the individual payments will be calculated; (vi) describe the recipient’s responsibility for any taxes payable on the amount received; and (vii) notify the aggrieved employees that they cannot opt out of the settlement and that, even if they do not cash their checks, they will be bound by the release.
16. The phrase “of the Released Claims” should be removed in the first full paragraph on page 2.
17. The third full paragraph on page 2 should be removed, as it appears inapplicable and is inconsistent with the paragraph above it.
18. Will the settlement administrator maintain a website for this case? If so, the notice letter should provide the URL for case website and identify the key case documents (including the order and judgment) that will be posted on the website, and should state that judgment will be posted on the settlement administrator’s website for at least 180 days.
19. Should the notice letter be provided in any language other than English? If the notice will be provided in a language(s) other than English, a certified copy of the translated notice (together with an English-language copy) should be attached to the proposed order and judgment as an exhibit.
As to the proposed order and judgment (ROA 105):
20. The proposed order and judgment should be revised consistent with the above.
21. The settlement agreement and any amendments thereto should be attached as exhibits to the proposed order and judgment (along with the notice letter in all languages).
22. Counsel information should be removed from the caption page.
23. The proposed order and judgment should be revised to include the order, rather than (apparently) referring to a separate order.
24. The proposed order and judgment should state the gross settlement amount, all deductions to be made from the gross settlement amount, and the net settlement amount.
25. The proposed order and judgment should identify plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, defendants and the settlement administrator.
26. The proposed order and judgment should state that the court retains jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 664.6 to enforce the settlement and the order and judgment.
27. The proposed order and judgment should state how notice of entry of the judgment will be given to the aggrieved employees.
28. The proposed order and judgment should state that the court orders the parties and the settlement administrator to administer the settlement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
29. The proposed order and judgment should include a proposed date for the final accounting hearing. The final accounting hearing should occur after the deadline to cash checks has expired. The court holds final accounting hearings on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m. The proposed order and judgment shall state that counsel shall submit a final administrator’s report at least 9 court days before the hearing addressing the status of the settlement administration, including the actual amounts paid to the aggrieved employees and the other amounts distributed under the settlement, including any uncashed checks.
The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval is continued to October 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the
17