Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
the GSA (inclusive of Pick Up Stix payments). The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by class counsel, a review of the billing records provided, and the estimated lodestar. In approving this amount and examining the billing records provided, the Court is not approving any particular hourly hourly billing rates proposed by class counsel.
2. Litigation costs in the amount of $29,702, the full amount sought.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $10,000, per the administrator’s declaration.
4. Enhancements of $5,000 to each named Plaintiff. In making these awards, the Court has considered only the factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. Payment to the LWDA of $15,000, per the parties’ PAGA allocation.
Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before February 26, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary. 5 Dodson vs. Leaffilter North, LLC
2023-01309066
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: 1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $316,667, or 33.3% of the GSA. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by class counsel, and the estimated lodestar. In particular, the Court notes the outstanding recovery for class members, who will receive an average of over $22,000, with one class member receiving over $68,000. In approving this amount, the Court is not approving any particular hourly billing rates proposed by class counsel.
2. Litigation costs in the amount of $20,000, the agreedupon maximum.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $2,990, per the administrator’s declaration.
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?”
4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors set
forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. Payment to the LWDA of $71,250, per the parties’ PAGA allocation.
Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before February 26, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary. Additionally, the Court notes that in the minute order of January 9, 2026, it asked counsel to provide contemporaneously made billing records at final approval. Counsel did not do so. Instead, the supporting declaration states the number of hours worked by each attorney and their hourly rates, along with a general description of all work done during the case. For future cases, counsel is advised that the Court expects contemporaneous billing records to be provided. 6 Gantt vs. George Fischer, Inc.
2024-01448959
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Approval
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to October 9, 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 29, 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. Counsel’s declaration filed with the current moving papers is not internally bookmarked as required by CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Please be advised that failure to include internal bookmarks in future filings may result in continuance of the hearing. As to the Settlement: 1. Did counsel interview anyone other than Plaintiff to value the non-record claims?
2. Did counsel review Defendant’s applicable meal and rest break policies? If so, are they facially compliant with applicable law?
3. Does the UCL claim have independent value, or does it simply extend the limitations period?
4. The class and PAGA releases cover not only claims that were pled or could have been pled based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the LWDA letter, but also facts “ascertained in the course of the Action.” Please delete this language. Almost anything could have been “ascertained in the course of the Action.”