Motion for Final Approval of PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
TENTATIVE RULINGS 5/28/2026 02:00 PM
100 Lucatero Final Accounting Torres vs. South Coast The settlement administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, Circuits, Inc. has confirmed that the distribution of the settlement funds has been completed and made in accordance with the terms of the 2022- settlement that were approved by the Court. 01244244 As Plaintiff has shown that the administrator’s work is complete, the Court’s file may now be closed.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant. 101 Ramos vs. Motion for Final Approval of PAGA Settlement Cathyjon Enterprises, At the last hearing on this matter on 2/26/2026, the Court Inc. identified various issues that Plaintiff’s counsel must address before Plaintiff Alver De Jesus Ramos’s Motion for Approval of 2023- PAGA Settlement may be granted. (ROA #68.) The Court 01338748 ordered that “Plaintiff’s counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the Court’s concerns no later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the continued hearing date.” (Id.)
Although Plaintiff’s counsel filed supplemental materials on 5/5/2026, those supplemental materials were incomplete and did not fully address the issues previously raised by the Court. In particular:
1. The Court’s 2/26/2026 minute order stated: “The moving papers fail to provide the Aggrieved Employees’ estimated individual recovery under the proposed settlement, including the estimated average, low, and high payments.” (ROA #68.) In response, counsel’s 5/5/2026 supplemental brief simply stated that “Defendant is currently in the process of calculating these amounts and the Parties will provide the information forthwith.” (ROA #73 at pp. 3-4.)
2. The Court’s 2/26/2026 minute order also stated: “The Settlement Agreement includes an escalator clause. But this is a motion to have the settlement fully approved, and so a specific GSA must be approved upon the granting of this motion. At this point, the parties should know or be able to determine the number of Aggrieved Employees and
qualifying pay periods based on the PAGA Period.” (ROA #68.) In response, counsel’s 5/5/2026 supplemental brief simply stated that Defendant is currently in the process of determining the final number of Aggrieved Employees and PAGA Pay Periods and the Parties will provide the information forthwith.” (ROA #73 at p. 4.)
As of May 27, counsel has not filed any further supplemental papers to provide the relevant information.
Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to June 25 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102.
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?”
The Court also SETS an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions against Class Counsel on to June 25 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102. for counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s 2/6/2026 order. Any response to the OSC must be filed at least 5 court days prior to the OSC hearing. 102 Mihailovic vs. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Between The Sheets, Inc. The Court has reviewed the supplemental materials provided by Class Counsel and finds that they adequately address the 2024- previously identified issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff Anna 01439140 Mihailovic’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.
This is a putative wage-and-hour class action. On 11/12/2024, Plaintiff Anna Mihailovic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Defendants Between the Sheets, Inc. and BTS (NB), Inc, alleging various Labor Code wage-and-hour violations. (ROA # 2.) Defendants each answered on 12/18/2024. (ROA #13, 14.)
On 11/4/2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action and PAGA Settlement, and submitted the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Class Notice for the Court’s review. The motion seeks preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement of Plaintiff’s class claims for the non- reversionary gross settlement amount (GSA) of $192,500.
On 3/5/2026, the Court continued the first hearing on the motion and asked Class Counsel to address a few issues. Counsel has submitted supplemental materials, including an amended version of the settlement agreement (“Amended Settlement Agreement”) and an amended Class Notice.
Based on a review of all papers submitted, including the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Court finds the settlement falls within