Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement
12. 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. At page 4, 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.
2. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English and Spanish?
3. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.
4. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.
2 Brand vs. Pacific City Operations, LLC
2024-01415965
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement The motion for approval of PAGA 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 30, 2026. If a revised settlement agreement and/or proposed notice is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions, and additions must be submitted as well. In addition, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supplemental papers and a copy of this ruling on the LWDA.
The Court’s prior minute order expressed concern that Plaintiff appeared to have agreed to a de minimis PAGA settlement in exchange for an outsized individual settlement for claims arising from a single month of work. To that end, the Court asked for a summary of the never-pled individual claims arising from discrimination and wrongful termination. The Court also asked for specific details about the predicate Labor Code violations giving rise to the PAGA claim.
The supplemental briefing adequately addresses the rest break predicate, but the briefing is inadequate on other points. Rather than providing any details about the discrimination claim, counsel
vaguely declares that Plaintiff “alleged conduct by Defendant that he perceived as discriminatory and retaliatory, among other things.” (ROA 91 ¶ 27.) In the context of the Court’s concerns that Plaintiff has “sold out” the PAGA claim in exchange for a large individual settlement, this is insufficient. Please explain the factual basis for these claims, and please explain any defenses Defendant would intend to raise.
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, at points 2.c-2.f of the prior minute order, the Court asked for specific information about several of the predicate Labor Code violations. Rather than responding directly to these requests, counsel provides a vague, general summary of these claims. (ROA 91 ¶¶ 12-14.) Again, in the context of the Court’s concerns about the PAGA settlement, this is insufficient. Why not simply provide the specific information requested? As things currently stand, the Court cannot discharge its duties under Moniz.
3 Cayetano vs. Meiji Dining Corporation
2024-01449313
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement 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 30, 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.
As to the Settlement:
13. Because a portion of the settlement payments are considered wages owed, the Court’s strong preference is for uncashed checks to be redirected to the Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund. If the parties nevertheless wish to use a cy pres, the parties and their counsel must disclose any connections they have to the chosen cy pres.
14. Did counsel interview anyone other than Plaintiff to value the non-record claims?
15. The FAC pleads that Plaintiff is a current employee. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion mentions her start date, but not any date of separation. How does Plaintiff have standing to bring and settle a waiting time claim, or a PAGA claim predicated on waiting time violations? (See Lab. Code § 2699(c)(1) (PAGA plaintiff