FORTE vs ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC

24CV061044: FORTE vs ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by BRITTANY FORTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (Plaintiff) CRS# A-61044-001 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/18/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by BRITTANY FORTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated on 07/21/2026 is Granted.

The motion of plaintiffs for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT

The complaint alleges various Labor Code claims.

The case preliminarily settled for a total of $1,000,000. The settlement agreement states there will be attorneys' fees of up to $333,333 (33%), costs of up to $28,000, Service Payment of $9,900 to Plaintiff; a PAGA payment of $50,000 ($37,500 to the LWDA), and administrative expenses of up to $10,000. After these expenses of $418,733, the amount available to be distributed to the Class would be $581,267. There are an estimated 190 Class Members, so the average net recovery for each class member would be $3059.

The motion makes an adequate analysis as required by Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116.

The proposed class notice form and procedure are adequate. CPT Group, Inc. has received one request for exclusion from Class Members and no objections to the Settlement.

The proposed class is appropriate for class certification.

The unclaimed funds will be distributed to California Justice Gap Fund. This is consistent with CCP 384. Counsel has provided a declaration in support of the motion that provides the information required by CCP 382.4.

APPROVAL OF FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

"Because absent class members are not directly involved in the proceedings, oversight to ensure settlements are fair and untainted by conflict is the responsibility of both the class representative and the court." (Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219, 227.) "[T]horough judicial review of fee applications is required in all class action settlements and the fairness of the fees must be assessed independently of determining the fairness of the substantive settlement terms. (Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 555-556.)

The court starts with its benchmark, then cross-checks with the lodestar, and makes adjustments 24CV061044: FORTE vs ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by BRITTANY FORTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (Plaintiff) CRS# A-61044-001 in Department 21 if the benchmark is significantly different from the lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 505 [“If the multiplier calculated by means of a lodestar cross-check is extraordinarily high or low, the trial court should consider whether the percentage used should be adjusted”].)

The Ninth Circuit’s benchmark is 25%. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495.)

When using the percentage of recovery approach, this court's benchmark for fees is 30% of a total fund. Courts have benchmarks ranging from 25% to 33%. Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. 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 fn 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn 11; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175.) The benchmark of 30% of 1,000,000 suggests fees of $300,000.

When cross-checking with the lodestar/multiplier, the court will evaluate the lodestar based on reasonable fees that would have been charged at hourly rates and then apply a multiplier. The multiplier includes contingent fee risk and other factors.

Counsel assert they spent approximately 238.7 hours on the case. This is reasonable. (Blanchard Dec. para 29)

The court finds that a blended rate of $700 is appropriate for the case. (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 708-709 [blended rate]; Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329, 337 [blended rate]; 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 438-440 fn 14, fn 16 [blended rate.) Regarding the amount of the blended rate, the court considers the evidence and its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market. (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 709.)

This results in a lodestar of $167,090.

The court applies a 1.2 multiplier for risk. This results in a multiplier adjusted lodestar of $200,508.

Considering the percentage analysis fees of $300,000 and the multiplier adjusted lodestar fees of $200,508, the court will award fees of $300,000. This is the Court’s benchmark. The Court does not find any facts that warrant a departure from its benchmark, either upwards or downwards. The award of fees is appropriate to compensate counsel in this case, to incentivize the prosecution of meritorious cases, and does not result in an unreasonable windfall to counsel at the expense of their clients.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV061044: FORTE vs ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by BRITTANY FORTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (Plaintiff) CRS# A-61044-001 in Department 21 The court approves costs of $24,588.82.

The court approves settlement administration costs of $8,500.

The court approves a total award of $9,900 to Plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted a declaration with evidence. (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.)

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION

“The settlement-fund proceeds, having been generated by the value of the class members' claims, belong solely to the class members.” (Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. (5th Cir. 2011) 658 F.3d 468, 474.) “Ultimately, “[t]he goal of any distribution method is to get as much of the available damages remedy to class members as possible and in as simple and expedient a manner as possible.”” (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 327 F.R.D. 483, 496.) If there are unclaimed funds after an initial distribution to the class members, then the Court can order a second distribution to the class members who cashed their initial checks. (4 Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions (6th ed. 2022) §§ 12:28, 12:30.)

The Court ORDERS that a compliance hearing on final distribution is set for 2/22/27.

The Court ORDERS that at least five court days before the compliance hearing on final distribution the plaintiff must file a statement regarding the status of the distribution including total funds distributed to class, total number and dollar value of checks cashed, and total number and dollar value of checks not cashed.

The Court ORDERS that funds not be distributed to the cy pres beneficiary until after Court approval of a final accounting.

The Court ORDERS that 10% of any fee award to be kept in the administrator's trust fund until after Court approval of a final accounting.

The court ORDERS that counsel for plaintiff transmit the appropriate documents to the Judicial Council. (CCP 384.5; Govt Code 68520.)

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV061044: FORTE vs ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by BRITTANY FORTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (Plaintiff) CRS# A-61044-001 in Department 21 If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.