Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
2025-01477814
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 as to the current versions of the agreement and the notice. 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. 12 Steele-Ramirez vs. Project Partners Inc.
2023-01361715
Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval 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 $35,595, 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 $17,911, representing the full amount sought.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $4,000, 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.
Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing. 13 Rodriguez Clavel vs. Malcolm Healthcare, Inc. Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
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?”