Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Approval
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
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.”
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?”
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Because she has submitted a declaration in support of her requested enhancement at preliminary approval, Plaintiff need not submit one at final approval.
8. 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. Please include workweek dispute and opt-out forms with the notice.
2. At page 3, please delete the descriptions of the mediator as “experienced, neutral” and the settlement agreement as “lengthy.” Because the notice is Courtordered, these descriptions could suggest the Court’s official endorsement.
3. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English and Spanish?
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.
7 Tadera Saavedra vs. Displayit, LLC
2024-01403288
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees
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 $255,000, or 30% 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, 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 billing rates proposed by class counsel.