| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Taylor Snow v. 555 Ocean View Blvd. LLC, et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
Hearing Date: May 22, 2026
PARTIES TO APPEAR on the motion of Plaintiff Taylor Snow (“Plaintiff”) for approval of the settlement agreement (“Agreement”) for the civil penalties claim she brought against Defendants1 under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). The parties’ appearance is necessary because the following issues must be addressed before this Court can rule on the motion. Depending on the parties’ response, the Court may either decide on the motion during the hearing or continue the hearing to allow the parties time to resolve the issues and submit additional papers.
1. When must Defendants distribute the Aggrieved Employee data?
The Agreement states that “[w]ithin 15 days, Defendants will simultaneously deliver the Aggrieved Employee Data to the Administrator in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.” [Agreement, Exh. 1 to Spivak Decl. at ¶ 4.2.] The parties should clarify to the Court when the 15-day period begins.
2. Should the Notice inform the Aggrieved Employee that the Individual PAGA Payments are made in three installments?
The Agreement states that “[w]ithin 14 days after Defendants fund the 12th, 24th, and 26th installment payments toward the Gross Settlement Amount, the Administrator will mail checks for pro rata shares of all Individual PAGA Payments...” [Agreement, Exh. 1 to Spivak Decl. at ¶ 4.4.] Based on this, it appears that the Individual PAGA Payments will be made in three separate installments. However, the Notice of PAGA Settlement (“Notice”) does not inform the Aggrieved Employee that the check included with the Notice is an installment payment. [See Notice, Exh. 2 to Spivak Decl. at 2:23-26.] Plaintiff shall amend the relevant parts of the Notice to clearly state that the Individual PAGA Payments are made in three separate installments.
3. What portion of the costs are associated with Plaintiff’s individual claims?
The Agreement allocates up to $31,000 for reasonable costs. [Agreement, Exh. 1 to Spivak Decl. at ¶ 3.2.1.] Plaintiff requests reimbursement of $28,186.10 in litigation costs.
1 “Defendants” collectively refer to Defendants 555 Ocean view Blvd. LLC (d/b/a Seven Gables Inn), Kirkwood Collection, Inc., and Kirkwood Collection Holdings LLC. 1
[Spivak Decl. at ¶ 36 and attached Exh. 12; Haines Decl. at ¶ 11.] It is unclear to the Court which of those costs are linked to Plaintiff’s individual claims versus the PAGA claims. If any costs listed in Exhibit 12 to the Spivak Declaration are related to Plaintiff’s individual claims, then Plaintiff should consider reducing the costs assigned to the PAGA claims accordingly.
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?”
4. What happens to interest on installment payments held by the Administrator before distribution?
The Agreement permits Defendants to make monthly payments of $5,000 over 36 months, until the total Gross Settlement Amount of $180,000 is reached. [Agreement, Exh. 1 to Spivak Decl. at ¶ 4.3.] The Settlement Administrator’s bid considers opening a “[Qualified Settlement Fund (‘QSF’)] Bank Account & EIN.” [Spivak Decl. at ¶ 39 and attached Exh. 13 at p. 3.] Presumably, this means the Administrator will hold the funds in an interest-bearing account. Neither the Agreement nor the motion explains what will happen to the interest accrued on the funds in the QSF before the three installment payments on the 12th, 24th, and 26th are distributed. The parties should clarify how interest on the QSF will be handled prior to distribution.
2