Ramirez v. Golden Glass, Inc.

10

declaration (Lazar Decl. (ROA 104) ¶ 39 (“Plaintiff is entitled to a Class Representative Service Payment . . . for providing Defendant with a more expansive release of claims, including a waiver based upon California Civil Code section 1542, in exchange for the Class Representative Service Payment.”)). The court preliminarily finds an enhancement award not to exceed $5,000 reasonable in this case. As to the notice: 7. The notice should be revised consistent with the above.

8. In the September 25, 2025 order, the court stated that the title of the notice and throughout the document should include “and PAGA” after “class” and before “settlement.” The phrase “and PAGA” should be inserted after “class action” and before “settlement” in the gray box at the top of page 1 of the notice, and after “class action” and before “litigation” in the second sentence of the paragraph immediately below the gray box. As to the proposed order (ROA 140, 148): 9. The proposed order should be revised consistent with the above.

10. The settlement agreement and any amendments thereto and the class notice packet (in English and Spanish) should be attached to the proposed order as exhibits, not submitted as a separate document from the proposed order. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA settlement is continued to February 4, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org).

A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement is directed, rather than “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review. The parties shall also provide redlined copies of any revised documents. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service.

No earlier hearing date is available for this motion. 11 Montes v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.

2025-01534796

Off calendar. 12 Ramirez v. Golden Glass, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement

2024-01421622

The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a $542,500 class action and PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments: As to the settlement: 1. The amendment to the settlement agreement is not signed by defendant or defendant’s counsel.

2. In the April 16, 2026 order (ROA 69), the court stated that it prefers a 60-day period for the submission of exclusions, objections and disputes. The parties amended portions of the settlement agreement to address this issue, but paragraph 7.4.4 has not been amended and should be to conform with the other amendments to the settlement agreement.

3. The parties appear to have amended paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement to remove and/or change the effective date of the class and PAGA releases. The court will not require the class members and aggrieved employees to release their claims before defendant fully funds the settlement. Paragraph 5 should be revised accordingly.

4. The amendment to the settlement agreement appears to include two versions of paragraph 5.3. The settlement agreement should be amended to include only one version of paragraph 5.3. In addition, paragraph 5.3 (as amended) should not contain an ellipsis; it should state the entire release.

5. Paragraph 5.2 (as amended) should not contain an ellipsis; it should state the entire release. In addition, the following phrase should be removed from paragraph 5.2: “and all claims for liquidated damages, civil penalties, interest, fees, and costs based on the foregoing.”

6. As stated in the April 16, 2026 order (ROA 69, No. 16), the last sentence of paragraph 7.8.3 of the settlement agreement should be revised.

7. In its April 16, 2026 order, the court stated that while it will not determine the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded until final approval, the court is unlikely to approve attorneys’ fees in excess of 30% of the gross settlement amount absent unique circumstances. The court stated that plaintiff’s counsel should address in the supplemental filing whether any such unique circumstances exist here. The circumstances stated in the Supplemental Bokhour Declaration (ROA 74 at ¶¶ 22-24) are not unique. The court preliminarily finds attorneys’ fees not to exceed $162,750 reasonable in this case.

8. In its April 16, 2026 order, the court stated while it will not determine the amount of any enhancement award for plaintiff until final approval, it is unlikely to approve an enhancement award in excess of $5,000 absent unique circumstances. The court stated that plaintiff should address in the supplemental filing whether any such unique circumstances exist here. The court also noted that the settlement agreement states the enhancement award is the consideration for plaintiff providing a general release of claims and a section 1542 waiver (Settlement Agreement ¶ 5.1; see also Brief (ROA 59) at 9:3-4).

The court stated that an enhancement award is not intended to serve as consideration for the release of additional claims, but rather to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, in some circumstances, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general, and that the court is unlikely to approve a settlement that provides an enhancement award in exchange for a general release.

Plaintiff’s counsel states plaintiff now seeks $5,000 as an enhancement payment. The circumstances stated in plaintiff’s counsel’s supplemental declaration (Supp. Bokhour Decl. (ROA 74) ¶¶ 26-27) are not unique, and plaintiff has not addressed the issue raised by the court, i.e., that the settlement agreement states the enhancement award is the consideration for plaintiff providing a general release of claims and a section 1542 waiver. Settlement Agreement ¶ 5.1; see also Brief (ROA 59) at 9:3-4.

The court remains unlikely to approve a settlement that provides an enhancement award in exchange for a general release. As to the notice: 9. The notice should be revised consistent with the above.

10. The effective date of the class release stated in section 3(9) of the notice is inconsistent with the with the settlement agreement and should be revised.

11. Section 3(10) of the notice should state the effective date of the PAGA release. As to the proposed order (ROA 72, 78): 12. The proposed order should be revised consistent with the above.

13. Only one copy of the notice should be attached as an exhibit to the proposed order. Superseded and/or duplicative copies of the notice should not be attached to the proposed order as exhibits.

The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA settlement is continued to February 4, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement is directed, rather than “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review.

The parties shall also provide redlined copies of any revised documents. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service. No earlier hearing date is available for this motion. 13 Reyes v. DMS Building Maintenance, Inc.

2019-01077939

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of an $715,000 class action and PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments: As to the settlement: 1. The definition of “Agreement” or “Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement” in paragraph 3 of the second amendment to the amended settlement agreement should include amendments to the settlement agreement.

2. In the March 19, 2026 order (ROA 316), the court stated that the “PAGA Claims” provision in paragraph 23 was overbroad to the extent it defines the aggrieved employees’ PAGA release. Settlement Agreement ¶ 49. The court stated that releases for aggrieved employees other than plaintiff should not release more than the civil penalties available under PAGA based on the facts alleged in the operative complaint and the notice letter(s) to the LWDA. The “PAGA Claims” provision in the second amendment to the amended settlement agreement remains overbroad. Paragraph 23 of the second amendment should be revised as stated in the March 19, 2026 order. The notice should also be revised accordingly.

3. In the March 19, 2026 order (ROA 316), the court stated that the “Released Claims” provision in paragraph 31 was overbroad. The court stated that the release of the class members’ claims must be fairly tailored to the claims that were or reasonably could have been asserted in the