Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
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 $19,479, per the amended costs ledger.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $10,000, per the administrator’s revised bid.
4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors discussed in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. 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. 2 Novello vs. HEG Enterprises, Inc.
2024-01391376
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 $225,000, 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 $48,000, the parties’ agreed-upon not-to-exceed amount.
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?”
3. Administration costs in the amount of $7,250, per the
administrator’s revised bid.
4. An enhancement of $15,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors discussed in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. 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. 3 Dehkordi vs. Modern Creation Inc
2025-01473144
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval The motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to July 31, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before July 21, 2026. If a revised settlement agreement and/or proposed notice is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well. In addition, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supplemental papers on the LWDA.
The moving papers and supporting declaration aren’t internally tabbed or bookmarked as required by the Rules of Court. Please be advised that failure to follow the Rules of Court in future filings may result in hearing continuances and orders to follow the Rules.
As to the settlement:
1. Are there any other cases, whether individual, class, or PAGA (including in the pre-filing LWDA stage) that may be affected by this settlement?
2. What is the actual number of aggrieved employees and pay periods worked? Is the escalator triggered?
3. The “Released Parties” include a laundry list of parents, subsidiaries, etc., but also refers to Defendant’s “related entities” in several places. Please delete references to “related entities,” as this term is too vague for the scope of the release to be understood.