DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
JCCP 5321·orange·ComplexCivil·Data Breach Class Action
GRANTED

Kimco Staffing Data Breach Cases

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Hearing date
May 14, 2026
Department
CX105
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Oct 15, 2026

Motion type

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,040,000$640,000$400,000$2,500.00$10,000.00$192,000.00$30,000.00$97,000.00

Attorneys

Hagenfor Plaintiffs

Ruling

The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a data breach class action settlement with total settlement consideration of $1,040,000, comprised of a $640,000 settlement fund and “remedial Business Practice Enhancements” with an asserted value of $400,000. Subject to plaintiffs’ submission of the documents identified below, the court grants the motion as follows: $2,500.00 for each named plaintiff’s enhancement award (not to exceed; together, total not to exceed $10,000.00); $192,000.00 for attorneys’ fees (not to exceed 30% of $640,000.00); $30,000.00 for litigation costs (not to exceed); and $97,000.00 for settlement administration costs (not to exceed). 12

1. The court issued two prior orders (ROA 154, 161) identifying several issues regarding the settlement for the parties to address in supplemental filings. The Second Supplemental Joint Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel (ROA 163) and the Hagen Declaration attached as Exhibit 1 thereto satisfactorily address the issues regarding counsel’s valuation analysis, the benefits of the settlement to the class members and whether the settlement is in the class members’ best interests, and defendant’s insurance coverage and other available financial resources.

2. The second amendment to the settlement agreement is not signed by plaintiffs’ counsel or the parties.

3. The release described in Exhibits C(1) and C(2) to the second amendment to the settlement agreement is inconsistent with the release in the second amendment to the settlement agreement and should be revised, i.e., the phrase “the operative complaint in” should be inserted after “in” and before “this Litigation.”

4. The settlement agreement, the amendments thereto, and the notice packet should be attached as exhibits to the proposed order (ROA 121). The settlement agreement and amendments thereto attached to the proposed order must be fully executed by the parties and counsel. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve by May 21, 2026 a revised proposed order consistent with the above, with all exhibits attached (including Exhibits C(1) and C(2) revised as stated above). The final approval hearing is scheduled for October 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105. The motion for final approval shall be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. See Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice and to file a proof of service.

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