Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
3 South vs. Hanson
2025-01473729
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to September 24, 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 September 14, 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. The definition of “Class” excludes putative class members who signed Pick Up Stix releases. As a result, there are 23 total members of the Class. The “Aggrieved Employees” are defined as “those members of the Class” who worked during the PAGA period. As defined, this limits the “Aggrieved Employees” to the non-releasing putative class members (since releasing putative class members are excluded from the class). However, there are 41 “Aggrieved Employees.” Are the “Aggrieved Employees” meant to include all putative class members during the PAGA period, both those who released their claims and those who didn’t?
2. In section 8 of the agreement, the parties estimate there were 606 weddings worked by artists and leads during the class period. However, counsel’s declaration repeatedly states that Plaintiff contends there were 3,115 weddings worked, while Defendants contend there were 1,000. Which of these three figures is correct? Why are the numbers discussed in valuation so much higher than the estimate in the agreement?
3. Section 9 of the agreement gives Plaintiff the right to demand an increase to the GSA if the actual number of weddings worked is more than 10% greater than Defendants’ estimate. By Defendants’ own estimate of 1,000, isn’t this already true? Has Plaintiff demanded an increase in the GSA, and have Defendants agreed to such an increase? If not, why not, and how does Plaintiff plan to proceed?
4. Is there a colorable argument that there are too few class members to justify class treatment?
5. Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that administrative employees worked in radically different circumstances from artists and leads. Is Plaintiff, an artist, typical of the administrative employees she seeks to represent?
6. Insofar as employer willfulness is a factor in wage statement and waiting time claims, what does published case law say about how tip withholding claims bear on a willfulness analysis? Conversion of tips suggests a higher level of intent than sometimes-technical meal break violations, for example.
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?”
7. Does the UCL claim have any independent value, or does it simply extend the limitations period?
8. The definition of “Released Claims” at § 5.2 includes “all claims that arise from the claims and legal theories and primary rights associated with the claims alleged in the Operative Complaint, amended complaints, and the PAGA Notice.” (Emphasis added.) Have any amended complaints been filed in this matter?
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Because Plaintiff has submitted a declaration in support of her requested enhancement payment, she need not submit one at final approval.
12. At final approval, the administrator is to provide a high, low, and average for individual settlement payments, along with Plaintiff’s individual payout.
As to the Notice:
1. On page 3 of the notice, please delete the description of the mediator as “experienced, neutral” and the agreement as “lengthy.” This is a court-ordered notice, so these descriptions could be construed as the Court’s official views.
2. Please include opt-out and workweek or wedding dispute forms (but not an objection form) with the notice.
3. Is notice required in any languages other than English?
4. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.
5. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.
4 Radmer vs. Beachwood Motel
2022-01261800
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval
Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the parties’ class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: