MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
25CV126375: DOMINICK vs SHATTUCK HEALTH CARE, INC. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT; filed by Aleseyana Dominick (Plaintiff) CRS# 019309887824 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Patrick McKinney
Plaintiff Aleseyana Dominick's Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Settlement is granted in part.
I.
Background
On July 15, 2026, the Court continued the hearing on Dominick's Motion to permit the parties time to correct two issues. (Order re Mot. Prelim. Approval Class & PAGA Settlement.) The Court assumes the readers familiarity with its order. Briefly, the Court restates its two requests to the parties. First, the Court requested that the parties designate a cy pres beneficiary for any unclaimed funds. (Id. § II.) Second, the Court requested that the notice more clearly and prominently state that the participating class members may object at the final approval hearing even if they did not file a written objection or notice of intent to appear. (Id.)
Dominick submitted a revised notice and amendment to the class and PAGA settlement. First, the settlement now provides that any unclaimed funds would be disbursed to Centro Legal de la Raza. (Otkupman Supp. Decl. Supp. Mot. Prelim. Approval Class & PAGA Settlement, Ex. 1, at 1st Am. to Class Action & PAGA Settlement Agreement, July 24, 2026.) Second, the notice more prominently advises that participating class members may object at the final approval hearing. (Id. Ex. 2, at pp. 2, 8.)
II.
Legal Standard
To prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800.) A court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Id. at 1801.) A presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arms-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 116, 128
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?”
Similarly, the Court must review and approve a PAGA settlement. (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).) [A] trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGAs purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 56, 77.) 25CV126375: DOMINICK vs SHATTUCK HEALTH CARE, INC. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT; filed by Aleseyana Dominick (Plaintiff) CRS# 019309887824 in Department 18 III.
Discussion
The Court finds that the notice to the class is clear and adequate. The Court finds that the class and PAGA settlement is preliminarily fair, adequate, and reasonable.
For the benefit of the parties, the Court provides the following preliminary guidance on Class Counsels attorneys fees, costs, and representative enhancement award. This Courts benchmark for attorneys fees is 30 percent. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Intl Inc. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 480, 495; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 1167, 1175; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 557 n. 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 43, 66 n. 11.) A court approving a settlement that includes a negotiated fee . . . is required to decide if the fee negotiated by the parties closely approximates the value of the attorneys work. (Robbins v.
Alibrandi, 127 Cal. App. 4th 438, 452.) Counsel must be prepared to address the value of the attorneys work, as well as the justification for any deviation from this Courts benchmark at the final approval hearing.
Concerning costs, Counsel must submit evidence of the costs incurred in support of a request to recover costs at the time of final approval.
Concerning the class representative enhancement award, any incentive, enhancement, or service award must be supported with quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs. (Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 785, 807.) Plaintiffs each request an award of $10,000.00. This Court is unlikely to approve an award of more than $7,500.00 absent special circumstances.
IV. Orders The Motion is granted in part.
The Court will sign the proposed order as amended.
The Court sets the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class and PAGA settlement on Wednesday, December 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The reservation number for this hearing is # A- 126375-001. The hearing will appear on calendar when counsel files their moving papers.
***
The Motion re: Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement filed by Aleseyana Dominick on 06/11/2026 is Granted in Part.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV126375: DOMINICK vs SHATTUCK HEALTH CARE, INC. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT; filed by Aleseyana Dominick (Plaintiff) CRS# 019309887824 in Department 18 Aleseyana Dominick (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.
CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS
Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.