DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CV0002545·marin·Civil·PAGA Settlement
ORDERED

ARBAK MKHITARYAN v. NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC.

HEARING – OTHER: FINAL ACCOUNTING

Hearing date
May 8, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffARBAK MKHITARYAN
DefendantNAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC.

Attorneys

Ruling

This matter is on for a final accounting of the PAGA settlement approved on November 7, 2026.

As for the declaration filed on May 1, 2026, by Fatima Montanez, providing the court with an update regarding final distribution. Paragraph 7 provides that the settlement residue shall be forwarded to The State’s unclaimed funds pool.

The public policy purpose of California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is to enhance the state's ability to enforce labor laws by deputizing private citizens to act as law enforcement proxies. Plaintiff’s shall select a non-profit agency dedicated to that policy goal to act as a cy pres recipient of the residue. Simpluris shall issue payment to the non-profit selected by the Plaintiffs within 30 days of entry of order.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court. IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share