Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
4 30-2022-01284958 The settlement administrator has confirmed that the Rosas vs. Furniture distribution of the settlement funds has been made in Ave, Inc. accordance with the settlement terms that were approved by the court and that the amount of the uncashed checks from the settlement has been transmitted to the State Controller’s Office’s Unclaimed Property Fund. As Plaintiff has shown that the Administrator’s work is complete, the court’s file is now closed.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant.
5 30-2023-01300740 The tentative ruling is to continue the Final Report Hearing to Medina vs. Kindness August 24, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. to confirm that the amount of the General Contractors, uncashed checks after the check-cashing deadline has been LLC delivered to the State Controller’s Office Unclaimed Property Fund in the names of the applicable payees, that the Administrator’s work is complete, and that the court’s file thus may be closed. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
IT IS ORDERED THAT any uncashed check funds remaining shall be “deposited by the Settlement Administrator with the California Unclaimed Property Fund, in the name of the Participating Class Member whose check is not cashed,” in accordance with the settlement agreement approved by the court. (Settlement at p. 6.)
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant.
6 30-2023-01358173 Plaintiff Leah Ruby Hernandez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Final Hernandez vs. Osen Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is Irvine, Inc. GRANTED IN PART.
The court disallows the attorney costs of $67.67 claimed for postage and copies because the court considers those cost items to be properly part of attorney overhead.
The court concludes that the $400,000.00 class action and PAGA settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and approves the following specific awards: • $120,000.00 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; • $24,897.61 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s litigation costs, reduced from the $24,965.28 requested;
• $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Leah Ruby Hernandez as enhancement award, reduced from the $10,000.00 requested; • $8,750.00 to Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions, the settlement administrator, as requested; and • $30,000.00 to the LWDA for its share of PAGA penalties, as requested.
The total amount that will be payable to all class members and aggrieved employees, if they are paid the amount to which they are entitled pursuant to the judgment, is $211,352.39.
Any uncashed check funds remaining after the check-cashing deadline must be transferred to cy pres recipient, Legal Aid at Work.
The Final Accounting hearing is set for July 19, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX103. At least sixteen (16) calendar days before the hearing, Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator shall submit a summary accounting of the distribution of the settlement funds to Class Members and Aggrieved Employees, identifying the distributions made pursuant to this Order and Judgment, and identifying the number and value of any uncashed checks, and the status of any unresolved issues.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to the LWDA and Defendants.
7 30-2024-01434110 Plaintiff Dinh C. Truong’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Approval Truong vs. RRL of Settlement Under Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) Corporation is GRANTED.
As the parties have decided to alter the PAGA Period to August 18, 2023 to November 30, 2025 (Supp. Seyedfarshi Dec. ¶ 8) instead of August 18, 2023 to December 1, 2025, the Notice of Settlement must be revised accordingly before being sent to the aggrieved employees.
The court concludes that the $199,000.00 PAGA settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and approves the following specific awards: • $59,700.00 to plaintiff’s counsel [25% or $14,925.00 to Employment Rights Lawyers, APC and 75% or
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?”