Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary 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
2024-01449009
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to July 24, 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 14, 2026. If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.
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?”
As to the Settlement:
1. The agreement defines “Defendant” as “KTLA Properties Limited Partnership, Inc. et al.” What is the relationship between the named defendants? For example, is one the parent of the others? Does one own real property and another operate the business on that real property? Etc.
2. The class period in the agreement begins on 12/2/22. The class period pled in the operative FAC begins on 12/27/20. What, if anything, does this settlement provide for class members who worked before 12/2/22, who have always been part of the class as pled? Absent a compelling explanation (e.g., a prior class action settlement covering part of the class period), the Court is unlikely to approve a settlement that provides nothing for nearly two years’ worth of class members.
3. Please provide 60 days, rather than 45, for opt-outs, objections, and workweek disputes.
4. Are there any other actions, whether individual, class, or PAGA (including in the pre-filing LWDA stage) that may be affected by this settlement?
5. Counsel states that Defendant turned over Plaintiff’s time and pay records, as well as pay records for 100% of class members. Did Defendant turn over time records for class members, or just pay records? If time records were turned over, was it a sample, or 100% of time records? If a sample, how large?
6. Did counsel interview anyone other than Plaintiff to value the non-record claims?
7. Counsel’s declaration mentions an expert retained to value the case. Whom? Please provide a CV.
8. Did counsel review the meal break waivers or on-duty meal break agreements Defendant intended to rely upon? In counsel’s opinion, were they compliant with applicable law and regulation?
9. Does the UCL claim have independent value, or does it simply extend the limitations period?
10. The class and PAGA releases generally cover all claims that were pled or could have been pled based on the facts alleged in the pleadings and the LWDA letter. This is fine so far as it goes, but both releases go on to list specific claims and Labor Code sections that were never pled in the operative FAC. For example, and without limitation, the releases cover reporting time violations. If these claims are well-enough known to the parties that they are listed in the release, Plaintiff must value them for Dunk/Kullar purposes before the Court will approve their release.
11. At final approval, please submit contemporaneously made billing records for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court will not be inclined to award an amount of fees and costs greater than the amount stated in the notice.
12. At final approval, please submit billing records for administrative costs. The Court will not be inclined to award administrative costs in an amount greater than the amount stated in the notice.
13. Because Plaintiff has submitted a declaration in support of her requested enhancement payment, she need not submit one at final approval.
14. At final approval, the administrator is to provide a high, low, and average for individual settlement payments, along with Plaintiff’s individual payout.
As to the Notice:
6. The notice should identify all defendants, not just KTLA Properties.
7. On page 3, please delete the descriptions of the mediator as “experienced, neutral” and the agreement
as “lengthy.” Because the notice is Court-ordered, there is a risk the use of these descriptions could be considered an official endorsement by the Court.
8. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?
9. Please include opt-out and workweek dispute forms (but not an objection form) with the notice.
10. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.
11. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.
14 Daniels vs. Lennar Homes of California, Inc
2026-01547354
Sultana S. Kelantan’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Case Management Conference
Attorney Sultana Kelantan’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Eian Daniels is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CRC 3.1362 requires that a motion to be relieved as counsel be filed on Judicial Council form MC-051, supported by a declaration on form MC-052, and accompanied by a proposed order on from MC-053. Counsel has filed only a motion on form MC-051. There is neither a supporting declaration nor a proposed order on the record. The letter and FedEx receipt attached to the motion are inadmissible, as they are not authenticated under penalty of perjury. Attorney Kelantan may refile the motion with proper supporting papers in compliance with the Rules of Court.
The Court hereby takes notice that the following case is related to the above-entitled matter: Daniels v. Lennar Homes of California, Inc., No. 2024-01422730.
This case is ordered removed from the inventory of the Honorable William D. Claster in Department CX101 and reassigned to the inventory of the Honorable Craig L. Griffin in Department N17 for all purposes.
The Court determines that for purposes of exercising CCP § 170.6 rights, there are two sides to this matter unless the contrary is