Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
may be closed. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
IT IS ORDERED THAT within five (5) days of this ruling, all uncashed check funds shall be distributed by the settlement administrator to the State Controller of California’s Unclaimed Property Fund in accordance with the settlement approved by the court. (Settlement ¶ 6(E).)
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant.
2 30-2019-01046637 Plaintiff Micshall Jones (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Final Jones vs. Liberty Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is Dental Plan, Inc. GRANTED IN PART.
The court concludes that the $1,500,000.00 class action and PAGA settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and approves the following specific awards: • $450,000.00 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, reduced from the $525,000.00 requested; • $17,628.94 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s litigation costs, reduced from the $17,651.54 requested; • $5,000.00 to Plaintiff as enhancement award, reduced from the $15,000.00 requested; • $9,000.00 to Simpluris, the settlement administrator, as requested; and • $168,750.00 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 $849,621.06.
The Final Accounting hearing is set for March 22, 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.
Within five (5) days of this ruling, Plaintiff shall provide the court with a revised Proposed Final Order and Judgment reflecting this ruling, with proper formatting as the current [REVISED PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT (ROA 256) has formatting errors, and must be amended to expressly state that Carol Dyer and Theresa Vigil, who submitted Requests for Exclusion, are not bound by the judgment with respect to the class claims.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to the LWDA and Defendant.
3 30-2024-01420491 The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on Plaintiff Hassan vs. F2 TPS, Malek Taisir Hassan’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Approval of LLC. Settlement Under Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) to November 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
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?”
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, rather than with a supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved.
Plaintiff has not submitted his attorneys’ bills or a detailed hourly breakdown of his attorneys’ hours to support the court’s review of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees request. Plaintiff has also failed to provide the number of years of relevant experience for the following timekeepers to support the reasonableness of their hourly rates: Robert Wilson, Vedang J. Patel, Megan Lazar, Joseph Rocha, Alexa R. Guzman, Bradford Smith, and Katherine Willis. Plaintiff is required to provide sufficient information to support the court’s lodestar cross-check of the fee request.
The court is inclined to grant approval of an attorneys’ fees request of only 30% of the gross settlement amount, which the court finds fair, adequate and reasonable for the settlement of this size.