PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
August 12, 2026 Law and Motion, Complex Law and Motion, and UD Law and Motion Calendars Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 1 23-CIV-01468 LUIS URQUILLA VS JOSHUA'S MOVING PACKING SERVICES, LLC
LUIS ALEXANDER URQUILLA KEVIN MAHONEY JOSHUA'S MOVING PACKING SERVICES, LLC CHRISTOPHER J. OLSON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Luis Alexander Urquilla and Melkin A. Menjivar’s Motion for Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is DENIED without prejudice.
On January 7, 2026, the court denied the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of this class action settlement for failure to resubmit a renewed motion that addressed issues previously identified by the court. On July 29, 2026, the court denied the parties’ stipulation to continue the deadline to file the amended motion for preliminary approval.
This is the second time the parties have submitted a motion for preliminary approval, and the third time the parties have come before this court attempting to obtain approval of settlement. The parties have again failed to address the deficiencies identified by the court which precluded approval of the settlement, and new issues have arisen.
The Second Amended Settlement Agreement, attached to plaintiffs’ counsel Kevin Mahoney’s declaration, is unsigned. Mr. Mahoney’s declaration is also unsigned. The parties and Mr. Mahoney shall correct these issues.
In its January 7, 2026 order the court noted that the Net Settlement Amount (NSA) was again inconsistently reported. The parties have failed to remedy this issue. The motion and proposed notice report the NSA as $24,334, while Mr. Mahoney’s declaration states that the “net fund” will be $32,099.33. The parties must clarify the NSA.
Relatedly, the parties have inconsistently reported the average individual settlement payments. Taylor Mitzner of settlement administrator Phoenix Settlement Administrators (Phoenix) states in her declaration that the average individual settlement share will be $715.71, while Mr. Mahoney reports it as $867.55.
The papers also inconsistently represent the class size: Ms. Mitzner bases her calculations on a class size of 34, but the motion and Mr. Mahoney’s declaration state that it is 37.
The settlement administrator payment is reported as four different amounts in four different documents. The motion states that it is $10,000, the settlement agreement states that it is $5,000, the proposed notice states that it is $6,000, and the declaration of Michael Moore on behalf of
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?”
August 12, 2026 Law and Motion, Complex Law and Motion, and UD Law and Motion Calendars Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Phoenix attached to Mr. Mahoney’s declaration as Exhibit F states that it is $6,500. The parties shall clarify this.
The court’s January 7, 2026 Order pointed out a number of issues with plaintiffs’ declarations and directed plaintiffs to address these issues in updated declarations in support of the motion. Plaintiffs have failed to file declarations in support of this motion.
The prospective class representative must file a declaration stating that the person desires to represent the class and understands the fiduciary obligations of serving as class representative. Counsel’s declaration to that effect will not suffice. [Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2013) 221 CA4th 986, 998, 164 CR3d 633, 643; Imperial County Sheriff’s Ass’n v. County of Imperial (2023) 87 CA5th 898, 919-920, 303 CR3d 875, 894-895—Ps failed to meet burden to show they were adequate representatives of class where they failed to file declarations to that effect, but failure did not justify denial of class certification motion, and trial court should have allowed Ps an opportunity to submit supporting declarations from proposed class representatives].
(Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter, June 2026 Update) ¶ 14:26.) Plaintiffs must file declarations. The court also notes that in the motion, plaintiffs cite caselaw regarding “settlement allocation” issues that have no bearing here and do not support a finding that plaintiffs are adequate representatives.
In the proposed notice, in the section titled “Fee and Expense Award to Class Counsel,” the parties failed to insert the amount of their requested fees. The section titled “You can object to the Settlement” has the wrong department number and address for this Court. It should be corrected to Department 28, which is located at 800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, California 94401. In the section titled “When is the next Court hearing,” the parties shall correct “Nealy” to “Healy.” In the section titled “What if I need more information”,” it states that the settlement is attached “to the Declaration of Kevin Mahoney and Berkeh Alemzadeh,” but the settlement is attached only to the Mahoney Declaration. The parties shall correct these errors.
Lastly, the settlement agreement states that money from uncashed checks will be sent to Legal Aid at Work. The parties must request the court’s approval of this cy pres recipient and confirm that they have no conflicts of interest with the recipient. (Code Civ. Proc, § 384, subd. (b).)
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.