SILVEIRA vs THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV057493: SILVEIRA vs THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Manuel Silveira (Plaintiff) CRS# A-57493-001 in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 06/01/2026 Patrick McKinney Parties to appear. Subject to consideration of any objections raised at the hearing, the court will grant the motion as set forth below. Parties may appear via Zoom: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16076551515?pwd=ejlVTDI1elNCdEJiQVJhMDBqdUc2UT09

Meeting ID: 160 7655 1515 Passcode: Nov22 The Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Manuel Silveira on 05/11/2026 is Granted. BACKGROUND

This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. Plaintiff Manuel Silveira agreed to settle the claims against Defendants The Dow Chemical Company and Rohn and Haas Chemicals LLC for $490,000.00, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Plaintiff seeks final approval of the settlement, including approval of a $147,000.00 attorney’s fees award; reimbursement of $14,907.23 in litigation costs; payment of $4,000.00 in settlement administration costs; a service award of $7,500.00 for the named plaintiff; and $20,000.00 in PAGA penalties, 75% of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25% distributed to aggrieved employees. The remaining funds are to be distributed to class members on a pro rata basis. Plaintiff’s counsel estimates an average individual class member payment of $6,052.91. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) A court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) A “‘presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV057493: SILVEIRA vs THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Manuel Silveira (Plaintiff) CRS# A-57493-001 in Department 18 Similarly, a “trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it 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, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action analysis, “including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount”].)

DISCUSSION

In this case, the parties mediated and reached settlement after arm’s length negotiations, and counsel conducted sufficient investigation and discovery to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently. (Corren Decl., ¶¶ 11–21.) Counsel cites significant team member experience in litigating class actions. (Id., ¶¶ 4–6.) The settlement administrator received no written objections in response to the class notice. (Salinas Decl., ¶ 8.) The terms of the settlement and notice procedures are fair, reasonable, and adequate.

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The court will enter the proposed order.

As set forth in the proposed order, ten percent of the attorney’s fee award must be kept in the administrator’s trust fund until the completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting. Unclaimed funds should not be distributed to the designated recipient until the court approves the accounting. Plaintiff must file a final report and declaration regarding distribution at least 5 court days before the compliance hearing. Appearances may not be required if the report and declaration establish that the distributions are complete.

The final compliance hearing regarding distribution and accounting is set for February 10, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 18. CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest, the tentative ruling will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing. Compliance Hearing re distribution and accountin is scheduled for 02/10/2027 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.