Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
11. Please provide contemporaneously made billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes. In the event such records are unavailable, please provide a time-and-task chart that identifies all timekeepers and their claimed billing rates.
12. The notice attached to counsel’s declaration is from a different case. Please provide a notice for this case.
Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?
4 RENTERIA vs. NEWLIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
2021-01215778
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement
The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the prior minute order. The motion for approval of the parties’ PAGA settlement is GRANTED. The Court finds the parties’ settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 72.) The Court approves the following distributions:
1. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $34,500, or 30% of the GSA. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by counsel, and the estimated lodestar. In approving this amount, the Court is not approving any particular hourly billing rates proposed by counsel.
2. Litigation costs in the amount of $15,000, representing the full amount sought.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $2,950, per the administrator’s bid.
4. The amount remaining is to be distributed 75% to the LWDA and 25% to the aggrieved employees as required by the version of PAGA in effect when the case was filed.
The Court declines to award an incentive payment to Plaintiff. The settlement agreement in Plaintiff’s companion FEHA action provides that approval of this PAGA settlement is a condition precedent to Defendant’s payment obligations in the FEHA settlement. In effect, the two actions have been settled together in a single, unified settlement. The amount Plaintiff will receive
for his FEHA settlement is more than sufficient to compensate him for his efforts in achieving a unified resolution of claims.
Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing. 5 Pacific Stone Construction, Inc. vs. Rafipoor
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?”
2021-01178241
Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Bond 6 Morales vs. Indotronix International Corporation
2023-01339414
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement
The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the previous minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.
The motion for final approval shall be heard on November 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing.
Please submit a revised proposed order that conforms to the foregoing, includes the date of the final approval hearing, and updates all dates that are calculated in reference to the date preliminary approval is granted.
7 Viramontes vs. Prestige Design Center, Inc.
2021-01179611
Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement No tentative ruling. 8 Dunn vs. Suzuki Motor USA, LLC
2025-01477567
Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement Case Management Conference
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to July 31, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Among other things, the Court will not consider an unsigned settlement agreement such as the one submitted after the close of business on May 27, 2026.
9 Dunn vs. Suzuki Motor USA, LLC
Case Management Conference