Motion for approval of a PAGA settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
"The district attorney, county counsel, or applicable prosecuting agency, as the case may be, shall recover, out of the forfeited bail money, the costs and attorney's fees incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture and in collecting on the summary judgment prior to the division of the forfeited bail money between the cities and counties in accordance with Section 1463.001." (Pen. Code, Sec. 1305.3.) Attorney fees are typically addressed by a noticed motion. "A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial Court--including attorney's fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial Court--must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case." (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1).) The County may file a motion for attorney fees and provide SBB and Lexington notice and an opportunity to be heard on these issues. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 1005, 1005.5.)
Tentative Ruling: Elizabeth Petersen v Sunrun Inc Tentative Ruling: Elizabeth Petersen v Sunrun Inc Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings This is a motion for approval of a PAGA settlement.
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff: Reuben Nathan Defendant: Brett Young Issue This is a motion for approval of a PAGA settlement. RULING On June 10, 2026, the Plaintiff in a similar action pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court filed a petition with the Judicial Council to coordinate actions, including this one, and seeking a stay pending determination of the coordination motion. Thus, the hearing on this motion is continued to Wednesday August 12, 2026, at 10 am to find out whether the request for stay is granted. Status Briefs due August 5, 2026.
Analysis
The unverified complaint was filed 5/20/26. This is a representative action brought pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for Defendants' alleged violations of the Labor Code. An Answer via a General Denial and 19 Affirmative Defenses was filed on 5/27/26. On 6/1/26 Plaintiff's attorney filed declarations in support of Plaintiff's ["unopposed"] Motion. On 6/4/26 Sunrun Inc's attorney filed a Notice of Related Case(s): Title: Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. Case number: 22STCV25672 Title: Santana v. Sunrun Inc., et al. Case number: 23STCV04257 Title: Gillette v. Sunrun Inc., et al Case number: 24STCV03326 The cases are "pending" in Department 10 in Los Angeles County. AND Title: Main et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al. Case Number: 26CUB00447
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?”
This case is "pending" in Kern County Superior Court Department H. On 6/9/26 Plaintiff's attorney filed a supplemental declaration. On 6/10/26 the Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner Angel Mondragon filed a 400 page Notice of Submission of Renewed Coordination of Actions [identifies 7 lawsuits] and reports there has been submitted a Petition for Coordination of Actions to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council for an order coordinating 7 actions including Elizabeth Petersen v. Sunrun Inc., Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 26CV03332 (the "Petersen Action" and collectively, the "Actions").
Just recently the Attorneys for Plaintiff Elizabeth Petersen submitted a [Proposed] Order AND an Amended [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of PAGA settlement. The Court's Conclusion The case should be continued because this Court did not find in its computer a definitive answer to the question of whether these cases were "coordinated."