UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
August 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 22 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 7 24-CIV-03224 ZOILA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS BAY AREA HERBS & SPECIALTIES, LLC
ZOILA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SEUNG YANG SIMILARLY SITUATED BAY AREA HERBS & SPECIALTIES, LLC JOHN F. HYLAND
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion for final approval is continued until November 27, 2026 at 2:00 p.m.
August 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 23 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 24-CIV-03224 ZOILA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS BAY AREA HERBS & SPECIALTIES, LLC
ZOILA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SEUNG YANG SIMILARLY SITUATED BAY AREA HERBS & SPECIALTIES, LLC JOHN F. HYLAND
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court denies without prejudice plaintiff’s counsel request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. The court continues the motion to November 27, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file and serve supplemental pleadings on or before October 27, 2026. Plaintiffs are also reminded to provide courtesy copy binders to the court in compliance with paragraph 11 of the Case Management Order No. 1 filed June 18, 2024. The binder shall contain the papers for this motion and the supplemental motion. Counsel’s failure to comply with this order for this motion has increased the court’s workload.
While a common fund fee is appropriate here, even a proper common fund-based fee award should be reviewed through a lodestar cross-check. (Lafitte v. Robert Half International (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.)
In reviewing the evidence submitted, the court finds that plaintiff’s counsel makes no attempt to show that the hourly rates are reasonable for San Mateo County where this case is venued. Counsel must demonstrate that the rates are reasonable for San Mateo County. “ ‘The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.’ ” (See
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?”
The court also has concerns regarding the work performed. There is no discussion on why there needed to be four attorneys on the case and how the work was allocated. Some of the work appears duplicative, some of the time for tasks appears potentially excessive, and it appears that some of the tasks could have been performed by attorneys that charge at a lower rate. Plaintiffs’ counsel needs to provide further facts. Further, the court has concerns regarding the accuracy of the time entries attached as Exhibit 3 to the declaration of Tiffany Hyun.
For example, there is no time for the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and case management conference on September 24, 2024 and, in fact, no entries at all regarding the motion to compel arbitration despite the fact that plaintiff signed a stipulation signed on July 15, 2024 and filed July 19, 2024 for an order regarding a briefing schedule for the motion to compel arbitration, plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 21, 2024 and provided supplemental briefing on October 15, 2024.
August 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 24 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
As to the service awards, the declaration of Zoila Garcia is conclusory with general statements about time spent. There are no facts demonstrating claims that she gave up by signing a general release. There are no facts demonstrating reputational harm. While the court is aware of reputation harm, the law protects an employee from being retaliated against by an employer and if any plaintiff believe that any employer is retaliating against her for being a plaintiff in this lawsuit, they shall notify their counsel who shall immediately notify the court.
The court has not been advised at any time during the course of this litigation of any alleged retaliation. Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 discusses the fear of retaliation as a reason an employee might not bring a lawsuit, but our Supreme Court states that the statistics demonstrated that enforcement mechanisms to sanction retaliation were working. (Id. at pp. 460-461.) There is no declaration from Carlos A. Orellana for final approval; only a conclusory declaration regarding time spent for preliminary approval.
As to the costs, there is no description for “Steno Litigation” and “Steno Invoice,” and “Admin Fee” for the cost to determine if the costs are reasonable and necessarily incurred.