Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement & Approval of PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
2025CUOE038050: LEON RAMON vs GLESBY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY, INC. 07/29/2026 in Department 44 Motion for Preliminary Approval and Paga Settlement
Tentative Ruling: Class Action & PAGA Preliminary Approval of Settlement Department Rules. Parties and counsel shall follow the Department 44 rules and Zoom protocols, available at https://www2.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C44.
Remote Appearances. The Court allows Zoom appearances as a courtesy to parties and counsel. The Court does not accommodate Court Call appearances. You MUST register by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your hearing or you will be DENIED entry to the hearing:
ZOOM Registration Link:
https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/meeting/register/iqN7uhQSQMuOqs-9TQXgEQ
No advance notice is required to appear in person.
Tentative Rulings. Oral argument should address the tentative decision. To submit on the tentative decision, email courtroom44@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the hearing date, copying all other parties. Use the subject line SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE, [Case Number], [Case Title] and [Party]. If not all parties submit, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling may change.
The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.
Motion: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement & Approval of PAGA Settlement (Motion) Tentative Ruling: The Court has now reviewed the papers filed in support of the Motion to include the supplemental information requested by the Court, and hereby GRANTS the Motion as follows: 1. Summary of Proposed and Preliminarily Approved Monetary Terms. Preliminarily Description Proposed Approved Gross Settlement Amount $285,000 $285,000
Less: Attorney Fees (not to exceed) $99,750 $95,000
Less: Costs (not to exceed) $18,000 $18,000
2025CUOE038050: LEON RAMON vs GLESBY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY, INC.
Less: Administrative Costs (not to exceed) $3,750 $3,750
Less: PAGA Penalties $28,500 $28,500
Less: Service Award $7,500 $7,500
Net Settlement Before PAGA add-back $127,500 $132,250
Plus PAGA Penalty to Aggrieved Employees (allocated per Lab. Code § 2699
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?”
Net Settlement After PAGA add-back $137,475 $142,225
2. Timely Service. The Motion was timely served on all parties, to include service of the Motion and settlement agreement on the LWDA. (Labor Code § 2699(s)(2); Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1005, 1010.6.)
3. Conformity with Rules of Court. The Rules of Court govern the length and format of law and motion papers, to include that no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages absent leave of court (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1113(d).); the font must be at least 12 points (Cal. R. Ct., rule 2.104); conforming exhibits that are appropriately indexed, tabbed or bookmarked, and paginated (Cal. R. Ct., rules 2.256(b) and 3.1110(f).) Counsels compliance with these rules greatly aids in the review of papers filed with the Court, and also avoids delay in the Courts issuance of a decision on the merits.
Noncompliance with these rules may cause delay in approval, or the Court to disregard noncompliant materials. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 187 & 128; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [trial court has broad discretion to refuse to consider papers that do not comply with rule 3.1300(d)].)
4. Fairness of Settlement. The Court has reviewed the motion, all supporting documents filed in support thereof, and finds that Plaintiff has met its burden to show that the settlement was obtained after an arms-length negotiation, and is fair, adequate and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801 [adequacy and reasonableness factors include consideration of case strengths, risks, and posture; settlement amount; experience of counsel].) The Court has reviewed the terms of the PAGA settlement, and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGAs purposes. (Moniz v.
Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App.5th 56, 77 disapproved on other grounds in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) In addition, the Court finds that the allocation between class claims and PAGA claims is fair. (Id.) Further, the Court finds that the scope of the release contained in the settlement agreement is fairly tailored to those that were or could be asserted in the lawsuit based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69
1 Effective for PAGA Notices filed before June 19, 2024, penalties recovered are allocated 75%
(LWDA) / 25% (Aggrieved Employees). For PAGA Notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, penalties recovered are allocated 65% (LWDA) / 35% (Aggrieved Employees). (Labor Code § 2699(m).) The notice to the LWDA in this case is dated February 7, 2025.
2025CUOE038050: LEON RAMON vs GLESBY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY, INC.
Cal.App.5th 521, 538-39.) The release does not include a Civil Code section 1542 waiver as to absent class members. The settlement is non-reversionary.
5. Conditional Class Certification. The Court is satisfied that the proposed class should be certified for purposes of settlement as Plaintiff has met the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 382 [ascertainability, numerosity, well-defined community of interest].
The class is defined as: Any and all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time from February 7, 2021 through February 17, 2026 (the Class Period).
Aggrieved Employees under PAGA are defined as: any and all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time from February 7, 2024 to February 17, 2026 (the PAGA Period).
Plaintiff(s) have analyzed the range of liability, and have provided information regarding the number of class members/aggrieved employees together with the average payout per employee, as follows:
Estimated Number of Class Members: 40
Estimated Class Payment: $3,175
Estimated Number of Aggrieved Not Provided Employees:
Estimated Average Allocation of PAGA Not Provided Penalty to Aggrieved Employees: 6. Appointments. The Court appoints plaintiff Ramon Leon as the class representative, plaintiff's counsel Daniel J. Brown of Stansbury Brown Law, PC as class counsel, and Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions as the Settlement Administrator.
7. Notice to Class. The Court is satisfied that the proposed class notice will adequately inform the class about the claims and satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.766(d), i.e., language of notice; the terms of settlement; release of claims; anticipated distribution; amount of fees and costs requested by counsel, class representatives, and the Settlement Administrator; does not include commentary concerning the merits of the settlement; and explains the time limits for class members to object, opt out, and redeem payments.
8. Attorney Fee Award. With respect to the request for attorneys fees, the Court has independently scrutinized Plaintiffs request for a percentage fee to be paid from the common fund in the amount of 35% the gross settlement amount. At this juncture, and
2025CUOE038050: LEON RAMON vs GLESBY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY, INC.
reserving the Courts discretion to select the method of fee recovery that best serves the facts at final approval, the Court approves a percentage fee recovery up to 1/3 of the common fund. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) The Court will exercise its discretion to determine the reasonableness of the fee using a 25 percent benchmark. Counsel must justify fees that exceed the Courts benchmark in connection with the final approval motion.
9. Incentive Award. Plaintiff in this case seeks an incentive award of $7,500. Here, the Court finds within its discretion that an award of up to $7,500 reflects the class representatives actual effort, risk, and contributions to the litigation, and is not disproportionate to plaintiffs expended effort. (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 13931395.)
10. Attorney Costs. Costs are requested in an amount not to exceed $18,000, with $15,222 expended to date. Subject to Plaintiffs substantiating such costs at final approval, the Court will approve costs up to the requested amount.
11. Claims Administration Costs. Costs are requested in an amount not to exceed $3,750. Subject to Plaintiffs substantiating such costs at final approval, the Court will approve costs up to the requested amount.
12. Cy Pres. The parties have selected Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Ventura County as the designated cy pres recipient in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.
13. Implementation Schedule and Proposed Order. Plaintiffs are to include a detailed implementation schedule to accord with the timeline provided in revised proposed order. The proposed order must be a complete document and may not incorporate by reference any document not attached to it. The proposed order must have as an attachment the class notice.
Subject to any modifications above, the Court GRANTS the motion and will sign the proposed order to be modified in accordance with this order. The Court hereby sets the hearing for final approval on Wednesday, March 10, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall give notice.
4