Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 20CV363825 Hayes v. The Container Store, Inc. (Class See Line 1 for tentative ruling. Action) LINE 2 21CV378018 Felix v. Ghuman Dental Corporation, et See Line 2 for tentative ruling. al. (PAGA) LINE 3 24CV448840 Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog, a Joint See Line 3 for tentative ruling. Venture vs LAN/TYLIN, a Joint Venture, et al. LINE 4 24CV450643 Skye Molina vs JC GROUP See Line 4 for tentative ruling. INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Class Action) LINE 5 24CV454910 Ismael Villanueva Palafox et al vs Empire See Line 5 for tentative ruling.
Farm Labor Contractor, LLC et al (Class Action) LINE 6 24CV454910 Ismael Villanueva Palafox et al vs Empire See Line 5 for tentative ruling. Farm Labor Contractor, LLC et al (Class Action) LINE 7 24CV454910 Ismael Villanueva Palafox et al vs Empire See Line 5 for tentative ruling. Farm Labor Contractor, LLC et al (Class Action) LINE 8 24CV454910 Ismael Villanueva Palafox et al vs Empire See Line 5 for tentative ruling. Farm Labor Contractor, LLC et al (Class Action) LINE 9 25CV460058 Phillip Clarin vs Proper Hospitality, LLC Unopposed application for (Class Action) admission pro hac vice is GRANTED.
Court will sign Proposed Order. No appearance necessary. LINE 10 25CV470534 Skye Molina vs JC Group International, See Line 10 for tentative Inc. (PAGA) ruling. LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13
Calendar Line 2
Case Name: Felix v. Ghuman Dental Corporation et al. Case No.: 21CV378018
This is a putative class and representative action arising from alleged wage and hour violations. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion and sets a compliance hearing for March 23, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 19.
I. Legal Standard
“In general, questions whether a settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260
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?”
The trial court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. (Id. at p. 245.)
The most important factor is the strength of the plaintiff’s case on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.)
Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to” PAGA.
The trial court must “determine independently whether a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable,” to protect “the interests of the public and the LWDA in the enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76–77.)
A PAGA settlement may be substantially discounted, and courts often exercise their discretion to award PAGA penalties below the statutory maximum. (Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504, 529; Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1213.)
II. Terms and Administration of Settlement
A. Settlement Terms
This case has been settled on behalf of “all persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants, either directly or through any subsidiary, staffing agency or professional employer organization, as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees, at any time during the period from February 17, 2018 through March 18, 2024 (“Class Period”) in the State of California. (Declaration of Megan R. Lazar in Support of Motion for Final Approval (“Lazar Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“Settlement Agreement”).)
The settlement includes a subset of Aggrieved Employees, defined as all persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants as non-exempt, hourlypaid employees at any time during the period from July 27, 2019 through March 18, 2024 (“PAGA Period”) in the State of California. (Motion, pp. 4–5.)
Defendants will pay a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $750,000, which includes: attorney fees of up to 35 percent of the gross settlement amount ($262,500); litigation costs not to exceed $35,000; a PAGA penalties allocation of $75,000 (75 percent, or $56,250, of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent, or $18,750, of which will be distributed to Aggrieved Employees as individual PAGA payments); a service award of up to $7,500 to Plaintiff; and settlement administration costs of up to $7,950. (Motion, pp. 4–5; Lazar Decl., Ex. 1.)
The settlement was negotiated based on Defendants’ representation that no more than 11,591 workweeks were worked during the Class Period, with an escalator clause increasing the gross settlement amount if workweeks exceeded 12,750.
The settlement administrator determined that the total number of workweeks during the Class Period was 10,771.13; the escalator clause was therefore not triggered, and the gross settlement amount of $750,000 remains unchanged. (Declaration of Lluvia Islas (“Islas Decl.”), ¶¶ 11–12.)
The net settlement amount of $365,844.05 will be distributed to participating class members on a pro-rata basis according to the number of workweeks they worked during the Class Period.
Individual PAGA payments will be distributed to Aggrieved Employees on a prorata basis according to the number of workweeks worked during the PAGA Period.
The Agreement provides that Phoenix Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”) will serve as settlement administrator.
The Agreement provides that any funds from uncashed settlement checks will be transmitted to Legal Aid at Work, for use in Santa Clara County, as the cy pres recipient.
The Court approves the cy pres designation.
In exchange for the settlement, participating class members will release Defendants and related parties from all claims asserted in the operative complaint, that reasonably relate to or arise out of the same set of operative facts set forth in the operative complaint, and that could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the operative complaint, comprising the wageand-hour claims pleaded in the action.
Aggrieved Employees will release all claims under PAGA that were alleged or that could have been alleged based on the facts asserted in the PAGA notice and the operative complaint, arising during the PAGA Period.
The release provisions are appropriately tailored to the factual allegations of the operative pleading. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.)
B. Administration of Settlement
In its order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, the Court approved Phoenix as settlement administrator.
On February 9, 2026, Defendants delivered class data to Phoenix, with a Class List containing 171 Class Members. (Islas Decl., ¶ 3.)
On April 7, 2026, after performing a National Change of Address search, Phoenix mailed the Class Notice, in English and Spanish, to all 171 Class Members. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–5.)
Ten notices were returned as undeliverable; Phoenix obtained updated addresses for all ten through skip tracing and promptly re-mailed the notices. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
The deadline to request exclusion, submit a written objection, or dispute workweeks was May 22, 2026.
As of the date of Ms. Islas’s declaration (June 29, 2026), Phoenix had received zero requests for exclusion, zero objections, and zero workweek disputes. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–9, 11.)
Phoenix estimates that the average individual settlement share will be approximately $2,139.44, with a highest share of approximately $10,776.68 and a lowest share of approximately $4.76. (Islas Decl., ¶ 14.)
There are 141 Aggrieved Employees, and Phoenix estimates that the average individual PAGA payment will be approximately $132.98. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
The notice process has now been completed.
At preliminary approval, the Court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable.
Given that there are no objections and no requests for exclusion, the Court finds no reason to deviate from that finding now.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval.
III. Service Award, Attorney Fees and Costs
Plaintiff seeks a service award of $7,500.
Plaintiff has provided a declaration detailing her participation in this litigation and the risks she undertook as the named plaintiff, including providing a broader general release of claims.
The Court finds that a service award is justified and the amount requested is reasonable.
The service award is approved in the amount requested.
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an attorney fee award of $262,500, representing 35 percent of the gross settlement amount. (Motion, pp. 15–24; Declaration of David D. Bibiyan in Support of Motion for Final Approval (“Bibiyan Decl.”), ¶¶ 16–21.)
Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the lodestar for this action is $244,679.50, based on approximately 386.4 hours billed at counsel’s hourly rates.
This results in a multiplier of approximately 1.07, which is well within the range of multipliers generally approved by California courts.
The benefits achieved by the settlement justify an award of attorney fees to class counsel.
The Court approves an attorney fee award in the requested amount.
Plaintiff’s counsel requests reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $31,205.95 and provides an itemized accounting in support. (Motion, p. 24; Bibiyan Decl., ¶ 22.)
The Court approves reimbursement of litigation costs in the requested amount.
Settlement administration costs are likewise approved in the requested amount of $7,950. (Islas Decl., ¶ 17 and Ex. B.)
IV.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion for final approval of the settlement and sets a compliance hearing for March 23, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 19.
Plaintiff shall prepare the order and judgment in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
- oo0oo -
5