DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
2024-01383579·orange·ComplexCivil·PAGA Settlement
GRANTED

Lopez vs. Istaffing, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement

Hearing date
May 14, 2026
Department
CX101
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

Causes of action

Labor Code violations

Monetary amounts referenced

$60,000$14,606.50$3,750$5,000

Parties

PlaintiffLopez
DefendantIstaffing, Inc.

Ruling

The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the prior minute order. The motion for approval of the parties’ PAGA settlement is GRANTED as to the current versions of the settlement agreement and the notice. The Court finds the 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 $60,000, 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 $14,606.50, representing the full amount sought.

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.

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