DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23STCV07200·la·Civil·Wage and Hour Class Action
Hearing in about 5 hoursGRANTED

Flores vs Continental Forge Company, LLC

Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$125,669.50$16,954.99$5,000.00$15,000.00$20,000$7,250.00$377,008.50$469,508.50$92,500.00$207,339$18,000$6,000$1,484.55$2,812.50$7.68$47.62$72.12$0.35$950.00$16,245.00$900.00$4,680.00$700.00$14,630.00$16,170.00$450.00$7,290.00$65,315.00$1,481.72$13,000

Parties

PlaintiffMiguel A. Flores
DefendantContinental Forge Company, LLC

Attorneys

Kane Moon(Moon Law Group, PC)for Plaintiff
Allen Feghali(Moon Law Group, PC)for Plaintiff
Edwin Kamarzarian(Moon Law Group, PC)for Plaintiff
Julie S. Oh(Moon Law Group, PC)for Plaintiff
Jamie C. Osganian(Moon Law Group, PC)for Plaintiff

Ruling

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 1) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT 1 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Approval of Class Action Settlement Department SSC-1 Hon. Theresa M. Traber Flores vs Continental Forge Company, LLC Case Number: 23STCV07200 Hearing: August 21, 2026

The Court hereby GRANTS final approval and awards the following: (1) $125,669.50 (33 1/3% of the USA) for attorney fees to Class Counsel, Moon Law Group, PC; (2) $16,954.99 for attorney costs to Class Counsel; (3) an enhancement payment of $5,000.00 to the class representative, Miguel A. Flores; (4) $15,000.00 (75% of $20,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA; and (5) $ 7,250.00 for settlement administration costs to Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour class action. Defendant Continental Forge Company, LLC is an aluminum forging provider with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.

Plaintiff commenced a class action on April 3, 2023, by filing a complaint alleging the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code Sec.Sec. 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197]; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code Sec.Sec. 1194 and 1198]; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal. Lab. Code Sec.Sec. 226.7, 512]; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks [Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7]; (5) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802]; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination [Cal. Lab. Code Sec.Sec. 201-203]; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226]; and (8) Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.Sec. 17200, et seq.].

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging an additional cause of action for Civil Penalties Under PAGA [Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2699, et seq.].

On September 23, 2024, the Parties mediated the instant action with Tripper Ortmann, Esq., where they reached a settlement.

On August 22, 2025, Counsel filed a fully executed copy of the resulting Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kane Moon ("Moon Decl.") ISO Preliminary Approval.

On February 2, 2026, the Court continued preliminary approval for further briefing and revisions.

In response, on February 26, 2026, Counsel filed a fully executed First Amended Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Kane Moon ("Moon Supp. Decl.") ISO Preliminary Approval.

On March 11, 2026, the Court continued preliminary approval for further briefing and revisions.

In response, on March 30, 2026, Counsel filed a fully executed Second Amended Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Kane Moon ("Moon 2nd Supp. Decl.") ISO Preliminary Approval.

Preliminary Approval was granted on April 6, 2026.

Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered. (See Declaration of Yesenia Henriquez ("Henriquez Decl.").)

Now before the Court is the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement.

CLASS DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL MONETARY TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

· "Class" means all persons employed by CFC in California and classified as a non-exempt hourly paid employee who worked for CFC during the Class Period. (Settlement Agreement, P.1.5.)

o "Class Period" means the period from April 3, 2019 to the date of preliminary approval. (P.1.12.)

o There are 137 Class Members. (Henriquez Decl., P.P.3,6.)

· "PAGA Member" means a person employed by CFC in California and classified as a nonexempt hourly paid employee who worked for CFC during the PAGA Period. (P.1.4.)

o "PAGA Period" means the period from April 3, 2022, to the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement. (P.1.30.)

o There are 105 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 14,489 Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. (Henriquez Decl., P.16.)

· Based on a review of its records to date, CFC estimates as of the date of mediation, there are 136 Class Members who collectively worked a total of 19,787 Workweeks, and 71 PAGA Members who worked a total of 8,170 PAGA Pay Periods. (P.7.3)

Should the actual number of Workweeks increase by more than 15% from the original estimate of 19,787, less the 213 Workweeks between 19,787 and 20,000 Workweeks CFC already covered as a good faith deposit, (i.e., the total number of Workweeks is more than 22,542), CFC shall increase the Gross Settlement Amount by a proportionate amount (i.e., $19.62 per Workweek above 22,542). (P.8)

o The total number of Workweeks was 26,467) which exceeded 22,542 by 3,925 Workweeks; thus, the Escalator Clause was triggered. (Henriquez Decl., P.13.)

Accordingly, the Uncredited Settlement Amount increased by $77,008.50 (3,925 × $19.62), from $300,000.00 to $377,008.50. (Ibid.)

· The Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) is $469,508.50 [1], non-reversionary. (P.3.1; Henriquez Decl., P.13.)

o Uncredited Settlement Amount ("USA"): From the Gross Settlement Amount, Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($92,500.00) shall be credited to Defendant to reflect the amount Defendant already paid to the Settlement Class to resolve individual claims.

Accordingly, Defendant will pay a total of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($ 377,008.50) and no more to the Settlement Administrator. (P.3.2)

· The Net Settlement Amount (Net) ($207,339) is the USA minus the following:

o Up to $125,669.50 (33.33% of the USA) for attorney fees (P.3.2.2; Henriquez Decl., P.14);

o Up to $18,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o Up to $5,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (P.3.2.1.);

o Up to $6,000 for settlement administration costs (P.3.2.3.) and

o Payment of $15,000 (75% of $20,000 PAGA Payment) to the LWDA. (P.3.2.4.)

· Defendant will pay their share of taxes in addition to the GSA. (P.3.1.)

· No claim form is required. (P.3.1)

· Funding of Settlement: CFC shall fully fund the Uncredited Settlement Amount, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay CFC's share of payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than fourteen (14) days after Final Judgment. (P.4.1.)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks:

The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. (P.4.2.1.)

For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member thereby leaving no "unpaid residue" subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 384, subd. (b). (P.4.2.3.)

The proposed Settlement was submitted to the LWDA on August 21, 2025. (Moon Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, Exhibit 3.)

The First Amended Settlement was submitted to the LWDA on February 23, 2026. (Moon Supp. Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, Exhibit 4.)

The Second Amended Settlement was submitted to the LWDA on March 30, 2026. (Moon 2 nd Supp. Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, Exhibit 4.)

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A. Does a presumption of fairness exist?

The Court preliminarily found in its Order on April 6, 2026 that the presumption of fairness should be applied.

No facts have come to the Court's attention that would alter that preliminary conclusion.

Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness as set forth in the preliminary approval order.

B. Is the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable?

The settlement was preliminarily found to be fair, adequate and reasonable.

Notice has now been given to the Class and the LWDA.

Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

Number of class members: 137 (Henriquez Decl., P.P.3,6.)

Number of notice packets mailed: 137 (Id. at P.5.)

Number of undeliverable notices: 0 (Id. at P.8.)

Number of opt-outs: 0 (Id. at P.9.)

Number of objections: 0 (Id. at P.10.)

Number of participating Settlement Class Members: 137 (Id. at P.12.)

Average individual Class payment: $1,484.55 (Id. at P.15.)

Highest estimated Class payment: $2,812.50 (Ibid.)

Lowest estimated Class payment: $7.68 (Ibid.)

Number of PAGA Members: 105 (Id. at P.16.)

Average PAGA payment: $47.62 (Ibid.)

Highest estimated PAGA payment: $72.12 (Ibid.)

Lowest estimated PAGA payment: $0.35 (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the notice was given as directed and conforms to due process requirements.

Given the reactions of the Class Members and the LWDA to the proposed settlement and for the reasons set for in the Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs

Class Counsel request $125,669.50 (33.33% of the USA) in fees and litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $16,954.99 to Class Counsel. (Moon Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.17.)

The Settlement provides for attorney's fees up to $ 125,669.50 (33.33%) and costs of $18,000 (Settlement Agreement, P.3.2.2; Henriquez Decl., P.14.); the class was provided notice of the requested awards and none objected. (Henriquez Decl., P.10 and Exhibit A thereto.)

"Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method." (Wershba at 254.)

Here, class counsel requests attorney fees using the percentage method. (Motion ISO Final, pgs. 20-24.)

The fee request represents 33.33% of the Uncredited Settlement Amount which is the average generally awarded in class actions.

See In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 ("Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.").

Counsel have provided the following lodestar information: Biller | Hours | Rate | Total | Kane Moon | 17.1 | $950.00 | $16,245.00 | Allen Feghali | 5.2 | $900.00 | $4,680.00 | Edwin Kamarzarian | 20.9 | $700.00 | $14,630.00 | Julie S. Oh | 23.1 | $700.00 | $16,170.00 | Jamie C. Osganian | 16.2 | $450.00 | $7,290.00 | Total | 91.5 | | $65,315.00 | (Moon Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.66.)

Therefore, Class Counsel has spent a total of 91.5 hours on this matter for a total loadstar of $65,315, requiring a multiplier of 1.92 to reach the fee request. (Moon Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.P.66, 69.c.)

As for costs, Class Counsel is requesting $16,954.99, which is less than the settlement cap of $18,000. (Moon Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.73 and Exhibit 4 thereto.)

C lass counsel has incurred costs of $16,954.99. (Ibid.)

The costs in this case include, but are not limited to, filing fees ($1,481.72), Case Anywhere costs, and mediation costs ($13,000). (Ibid.)

The costs seem reasonable and necessary to litigation. (Ibid.)

Based on the above, the recommendation is to award $ 125,669.50 (1/3 of USA) for fees and $16,954.99 for litigation costs.

D. Incentive Award to Class Representative

The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $5,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff. (Settlement Agreement, P.3.2.1.)

Plaintiff Flores represents that his contributions to this litigation include, but are not limited to the following: obtaining counsel, gathering documents, reviewing documents, answering counsel's questions, identifying witnesses, preparing for and remaining available for mediation, and reviewing the settlement. (Declaration of Plaintiff Flores, P.P.10-14, 18-20,)

Based on the above, the recommendation is to award an enhancement award in the amount of $5,000.

E. Claims Administration Costs

The claims administrator requests $6,000 for the costs of administering the settlement. (Henriquez Decl., P.18.)

This is equal to the $6,000 maximum amount disclosed in the notice to class members, to which there were no objections. (Henriquez Decl., P.10 and Exhibit A thereto.)

Based on all the work performed by the Claims Administrator, the recommendation is to award costs in the requested amount of $6,000.

[1] Uncredited Settlement Amount $300,000 + $77,008.50 Escalator Increase + $92,500 Credit for Previously Paid Claims = $469,508.50 GSA | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share