Motion for Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
117 Navarro Status Conference Arevalo vs. Gold Coast Continued to August 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in Baking Department CX102 Company, Inc.
CMC statement to be filed 10 days in advance. 2022- Parties are to address effect of settlement re 01243370 related Gonzales matter.
118 Lopez vs. Motion for Final Approval Atrium Hospitality LP Plaintiff’s motion for final approval is CONTINUED to July 9, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 to permit the 2022- parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any 01245971 supplemental briefing shall be filed 16 court days prior to the hearing. Redlines showing all changes, deletions, and additions must also be submitted. In addition, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of any revised supporting papers on the LWDA.
1. What is the amount of the lowest estimated individual PAGA award?
2. What are the amounts of plaintiff’s individual class and PAGA awards?
3. All cost items for mailings, postage, copying, and faxes should be removed as the court does not reimburse such costs. ROA 161 Ex. D. Furthermore, the court requires submission of supporting documentation for the mediation fee. Additionally, counsel should explain to what the numerous charges for “Janney & Janney” pertain. Id.
As to the Proposed Order:
4. The title of the document and the footer should reflect “Proposed Order Granting Final Class Action and PAGA Settlement Approval and Judgment.” ROA 164.
5. Identify the operative settlement by ROA number. ROA 164 ¶ 1.
6. Include the releases and their operative dates. ROA 164 ¶¶ 14-15.
7. Propose a realistic date in 2027 for a final accounting hearing, which the court hears on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m. ROA 164 ¶ 16.
8. Specify that notice shall also be given to the LWDA. ROA 164 ¶ 19.
9. Delete paragraph 20. ROA 164.
Plaintiff to give notice of this court’s ruling, including to the LWDA, within 10 calendar days, and file proof of service.
119 Medicredit 1. Motion to Deny Class Certification Wage and 2. Motion to Certify Class Hour Cases 3. Trial Setting Conference
The Court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental filings made in JCCP 5269 response to the Court’s 4/9/2026 minute order.
The Court CONTINUES the parties’ cross-motions on class certification to July 2 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 and ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a revised proposed Class Notice consistent with this ruling.
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?”
This ruling (1) addresses all issues raised in the parties’ supplemental filings in response to the Court’s 3/17/2026 and 4/9/2026 minute orders and (2) supplements the Court’s previous 3/17/2026 minute order ruling on the parties’ cross- motions for class certification.
1. Plaintiff’s Adequacy Declaration The Court has considered Defendants’ objections (ROA #580) to Plaintiff’s adequacy declaration submitted at ROA #566. The Court OVERRULES all objections because Defendants’ arguments all go more to the weight of the evidence as to admissibility, and Defendants’ cited authorities about discovery admissions controlling over contrary declarations lodged at the hearing in the summary judgment context do not apply here on a motion for class certification.
The Court notes that at Plaintiff’s deposition on January 23, 2025, Plaintiff stated, “I don’t understand that” in response to the question, “[D]o you understand that you’re attempting to act as a class representative to represent other employees?” (ROA #575, Lu Decl., Exh. 1 at p. 35:21-24; see also id. at p. 35:25-37:10 [similar].) This does contradict ¶ 3 of Plaintiff’s adequacy declaration signed on 3/25/2026, which states that “[w]hen [she] first retained [her] attorneys (Lauby, Mankin & Lauby), [she]