Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
2 Foss vs. Prenovost, Normandin, Dawe & Rocha, A.P.C.
2025-01488839
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before August 24, 2026. If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well. As to the Settlement:
1. Are there any other pending actions, whether class or individual, that may be affected by this settlement?
2. Did the parties engage a mediator to assist in settlement negotiations?
3. Please provide 60 days, rather than 45, for objections and optouts.
4. Section 64 of the agreement says that written objections must be filed with the Court and served on counsel and the administrator. Please delete this requirement. Written objections need only be mailed to the administrator. The administrator or counsel will then file the objections with the final approval papers.
5. Section 64 also says that class members must file a written objection in order to be heard at the final approval hearing. Please delete this requirement. The Court will entertain oral objections from class members at the final approval hearing regardless of whether written objections were submitted.
6. There are approximately 1,483 class members. How many of these are California subclass members?
7. Has Defendant implemented any corrective measures since the data breach? If so, please provide a declaration for the Court’s in camera review describing these corrective measures.
8. Read together, the definitions of “Released Claims” and “Released Parties” make the release overbroad. For example, the Released Claims include claims that “relate to” the data breach, and the “Released Parties” include Defendant’s “attorneys,” i.e., defense counsel. Suppose that defense counsel, in the course of defending this action, received copies of the class’s protected data in confidence. Further suppose that defense counsel was the victim of a separate data breach, which exposed the class’s protected data a second time.
It appears that the class would release any claims arising from this second data breach, as the second breach is “related to” the first, and defense counsel is a released party. Please ensure the release is properly limited to claims arising solely from the data breach at issue, and is further limited only to those parties who might reasonably be expected to face liability.
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?”
9. The agreement includes a classwide release of unknown claims with a § 1542 waiver. Please delete this. The Court will not approve such a release on a classwide basis. The class release must be limited to claims that were pled in the operative complaint or could be pled based on the facts alleged therein.
10. At final approval, please submit contemporaneously made billing records for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court will not be inclined to award an amount of fees and costs greater than the amount stated in the notice.
11. At final approval, please submit billing records for administrative costs. The Court will not be inclined to award administrative costs in an amount greater than the amount stated in the notice.
12. Because Plaintiff has provided a declaration in support of her requested service payment, he need not provide one at final approval.
13. At final approval, the administrator is to provide information regarding the number of persons who opted for credit monitoring and the number of persons who chose each cash option. For those persons who claimed documented losses, the administrator is to provide the high, low, and average estimated payments. For those persons who claimed the alternative cash payment, the administrator is to provide the breakdown between California residents and non-California residents.
As to the Notice:
1. Page 8 of the long-form notice says objectors must file their objections with the Court. As discussed above, it suffices for objections to submit objections to the administrator.
2. The long-form notice should make clear that class members may appear at final approval to object even if they didn’t submit a written objection.
3. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?
4. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notices.
The font size in the actual notices (both short- and long-form) may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notices provided to the Court.
3 Gates vs. Herbalife Manufacturing LLC
2022-01289409
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval
The motion for final approval of class action settlement is continued to August 7, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101 for the parties to address the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing must be filed 10 days prior to the hearing.
1. The administrator’s declaration says two class members opted out. The proposed order says no class members opted out. If any class members opted out, they must be identified by name in the proposed order.
2. Please provide Plaintiffs’ estimated individual class and PAGA shares.
3. At preliminary approval, the Court ordered counsel to provide billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes. The Falakassa firm claims a lodestar of $35,162.50 for 48.5 hours at $725 per hour, but no supporting records are attached to Falakassa’s declaration. Please provide billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes.