Motion – Approval of PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order approving a representative settlement under California’s Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code § 2698, et seq.
Defendant stipulates to the settlement.
The terms subject to approval by the court:
1. Defendant will pay a maximum of $350,000.00, subject to potential increase under an Escalator Clause and entry of the Court’s Approval Order. Defendant’s settlement funding contribution will be due on the later of (i) 15 calendar days after the Effective Date, or (ii) March 31, 2026.
2. The Effective Date means the later of the 61st day after service of notice of entry of the Final Order.
3. The Settlement includes an “Escalator Clause”. Should the actual number of PAGA pay periods exceed the 10% of the estimated count (i.e. more than 35,151), Defendant agrees to either (1) make a proportional increase to the settlement by the percentage increase for each additional PAGA Pay Period above 35,151, or (2) modify the PAGA Period to a date that avoids incurring the pro rata increase. (Id.) The Parties agree that any increase to the GSA made pursuant to this provision will increase the applicable attorneys’ fees payable to PAGA Counsel such that the attorneys’ fees remain one-third of the adjusted settlement fund.
4. The Settlement includes Enhancement awards to named plaintiffs in an amount up to $7,500.00 each, for a total of $15,000.00, payable from the settlement fund.
5. The Settlement includes attorneys’ fees in an amount up to one-third (33%) of the settlement fund (i.e., at least $116,666.67), plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket litigation costs not to exceed $21,773.05. (¶ 39(b).) Moon Law Group, PC hopes to a share of the awarded fees in an amount equal to 75% (currently estimated at $87,500.00)
and actual litigation costs, not to exceed $20,500.00. (Id.) Capstone Law, APC will be entitled to a share of the awarded fees in an amount equal to 25% (currently estimated at $29,166.67) and actual litigation costs, not to exceed $4,500.00. (Id.)
6. The Settlement provides claim administration expenses of up to $9,000.00. (¶39(a).) If the actual administration costs is less and/or the amount approved by the Court is less than requested, the difference will be allocated to the net settlement amount. The administrator is CPT Group.
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?”
7. Estimated costs are $21,773.
The motion is not opposed, and the settlement amount is approved.
Counsel for Plaintiff is to appear to support the request for 33% of the settlement fund, plus costs, in light of the lodestar which was projected to be approximately $87,500. The complaint was filed in January 2025 and answered in April 2025. There is no indication that the parties engaged in protracted litigation.
Counsel shall also be prepared to discuss how the contingency fee was determined, and at what point during the case the attorney’s fee recovery was negotiated.
The court proposes that the estimated costs of $21,773 be folded into the anticipated 33% contingency fee of $116,666.67. The suggested lodestar is $87,500. The lodestar plus costs totals $109,273, which is $7,393 less than the requested contingency fee. This approach maximizes the payments to the representative workforce members who participate in the settlement.
Plaintiff is also requested to explain the escalator clause. Plaintiff’s request to fold a percentage of funding from the escalator clause into the contingency fee is denied. Any increase to the settlement fund shall flow back to the workers.
Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.
IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).