Perez v. Workforce Personnel, et al

20. Perez v. Workforce Personnel, et al, Case No. CIV2220822 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 7/6/26, 1:30 p.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would CONTINUE to allow for amendment and supplemental filings.

Importantly, the original Plaintiff in this matter, Margarita Perez, is still an active participant in this case. Yet, troublingly, she is not a signatory to the purported settlement agreement nor has she submitted a declaration in support of her position as a purported representative plaintiff. (See Spivak Decl., Exh. A [Settlement].) Rather, the settlement agreement sets forth only Plaintiff Huerta as a class representative – despite the fact that she was not added into the case until the most recent amendment to the Complaint on November 14, 2025. (First Amended Complaint [FAC].) There is no explanation for Plaintiff Perez’s wholesale disappearance from this matter or any treatment on why relation-back to Plaintiff Perez’s LWDA notice [September 7, 2022] or original filing [September 19, 2022] is appropriate when she is not part of this settlement.

Further, the Court notes that the declaration submitted by Plaintiff Huerta does not discuss her adequacy as a class representative. Rather, it simply sets forth that she has given up rights in furtherance of her case and is therefore entitled to an enhancement fee. The Court, obviously, is obligated to determine – among other things – that the purported class representative adequately represents the class. (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435.) As currently constituted, the declaration fails to provide enough information to allow the Court to reach that conclusion.

*** *** ***

2