Motion for Approval of Settlement Under Private Attorneys General Act
• $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
$44,775.00 to Law Offices of Farrah Mirabel] for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; • $12,699.40 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s litigation costs, as requested; • $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Dinh C. Truong as enhancement award, as requested; • $5,350.00 to ILYM Group, Inc., the settlement administrator, as requested; • $87,187.95 to the LWDA for its share of PAGA penalties; and • $29,062.65 to the aggrieved employees for their share of PAGA penalties.
The court sets a Final Report Hearing for July 19, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. to confirm that distribution efforts are fully completed, including the distribution of uncashed aggrieved employee checks after 180 days, that the Administrator’s work is complete, and that the court’s file thus may be closed. The parties must report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the aggrieved employees. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to the LWDA and Defendant.
8 30-2023-01354699 The tentative ruling is to continue Plaintiff Amir Moayeri’s Moayeri vs. Financial (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Insight Technology, and PAGA Settlement to November 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. Inc. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be reread) no later than two weeks before the next hearing date. Counsel must submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement. Counsel also must provide a red-lined version of any revised papers. Counsel also should provide the court with an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved, with references to any corrections to the settlement agreement and the class notice, rather than with a supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved.
Plaintiff failed to provide the court with a text-searchable declaration from counsel, Megan Lazar, in compliance with CRC 2.256(b)(3).
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?”