Motion to Lift Stay and for Approval of Settlement Under Private Attorneys General Act
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
• $19,263.33 to plaintiff’s counsel [$18,736.36 to Lawyers for Justice, PC and $526.97 to Parker & Minne, LLP] for plaintiff’s litigation costs; • $8,498.70 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators, the settlement administrator, as requested; • $54,178.48 to the LWDA for its share of PAGA penalties; and • $18,059.49 to the aggrieved employees for their share of PAGA penalties.
The court sets a Final Report Hearing for February 1, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. to confirm that distribution efforts are fully completed, including the distribution of uncashed aggrieved employee checks after 180 days, that the Administrator’s work is complete, and that the court’s file thus may be closed. The parties must report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the aggrieved employees. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to the LWDA and Defendant.
6 30-2024-01375043 Plaintiff Gilbert Castellon’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to 1) Lift Stay Castellon vs. Priority and 2) for Approval of Settlement Under Private Attorneys Plus Financial LLC General Act (“PAGA”) is GRANTED.
The court concludes that the $319,000.00 PAGA settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and approves the following specific awards: • $95,700.00 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; • $6,693.05 to plaintiff’s counsel for plaintiff’s litigation costs, as requested; • $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Gilbert Castellon as enhancement award; • $2,750.00 Simpluris, Inc., the settlement administrator, as requested; • $156,642.71 to the LWDA for its share of PAGA penalties; and • $52,214.24 to the aggrieved employees for their share of PAGA penalties.
The court sets a Final Report Hearing for February 1, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. to confirm that distribution efforts are fully
completed, including the distribution of uncashed aggrieved employee checks after 180 days, that the Administrator’s work is complete, and that the court’s file thus may be closed. The parties must report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the aggrieved employees. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to the LWDA and Defendant.
7 30-2024-01445740 Plaintiff Vitalii Syrovoi’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Syrovoi vs. Lending 3, Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Inc. Defendant Lending 3, Inc. (“L3I”), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Defendant PacWest Financial Services, Inc. (“PacWest”), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Defendant Andrea Park (“Park”), are GRANTED.
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?”
IT IS ORDERED THAT within thirty (30) days of this ruling, Defendants L3I, PacWest and Park (collectively, “Defendants”), shall each: (1) provide to Plaintiff further, complete, code-compliant responses to each Request for Production in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, including identifying any responsive documents; (2) produce all non-privileged, responsive documents to each request; and (3) to the extent Defendants withhold any responsive documents on the basis of privilege, Defendants shall provide a privilege log supporting the assertion of privilege.
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, properly seek documents within the scope of this wage and hour class action concerning Plaintiff’s employment records, documents relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations in his Complaint, discovery relevant to class certification regarding putative class members and Defendants’ employment policies and practices, the relationship between corporate defendants, Defendants’ insurance policies and documents relied upon by Defendants in their other discovery responses. Defendants asserted boilerplate objections, failed to verify their responses, and did not produce any responsive documents. Defendants’ counsel also failed to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s multiple attempts to meet and confer regarding the subject discovery.