Sanchez vs. Adecco USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

3. Administration costs in the amount of $3,750, per the administrator’s bid.

4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors discussed in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.

5. The amount remaining is to be distributed 75% to the LWDA and 25% to the aggrieved employees as required by the version of PAGA in effect when the case was filed.

Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing.

2 Sanchez vs. Adecco Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Paga Settlement USA, Inc., a Delaware The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in Corporation response to the prior minute order. The motion for approval of the parties’ PAGA settlement is GRANTED. The Court finds the 2022-01283469 parties’ settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 72.) The Court approves the following distributions:

1. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $132,750, or 30% of the GSA. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by counsel, and the estimated lodestar. In approving this amount, the Court is not approving any particular hourly billing rates proposed by counsel.

2. Litigation costs in the amount of $21,462, representing the full amount sought.

3. Administration costs in the amount of $9,790, per the administrator’s bid.

4. An enhancement of $2,500 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors discussed in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.

5. The amount remaining is to be distributed 75% to the LWDA and 25% to the aggrieved employees as required by the version of PAGA in effect when the case was filed.

Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing.

3 Diaz vs. Burlington Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Final Approval Safety Laboratory of California, Inc.