Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
24CV097081: ANSIS vs PREMIER SENIOR CARE GROUP CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by Lorelai Ansis (Plaintiff) CRS# 321683067797 in Department 21
Tentative Ruling - 06/05/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee
The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Lorelai Ansis on 03/27/2026 is Granted.
The motion of plaintiffs for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.
The order of 4/21/26 identified certain concerns. The filing on 6/2/26 has addressed the concerns with one exception. The exception is Amended Agreement para 5.3, which states: Plaintiff releases the Released Parties from all claims for statutory penalties that could have been sought by the LWDA for the violations alleged in Plaintiffs letter to the LWDA by way of the PAGA Notice or the operative Complaint. As stated in the order of 4/21/26, the scope of the LWDAs release is limited to the scope of the PAGA notice letter. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1192-1196.) The Court approves the settlement to avoid another round of editing, but advises the parties that scope of the release of the LWDAs claims is limited to and co-extensive with the scope of the PAGA notice letter.
The complaint alleges various Labor Code claims.
The case preliminarily settled for a total of $375,000.
The settlement agreement states there will be attorneys' fees of up to $131,250 (35%), costs of up to $35,000, service award of $10,000 to plaintiff, settlement administration costs of up to $7,055, and a PAGA payment of $ 20,000 ($13,000 to the LWDA). After these expenses of $196,305, the amount available to be distributed to the Class would be $178,695. Assuming that there are an estimated 200 Class Members, the average payment per Class Member would be $893.
The motion makes an adequate analysis as required by Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116.
The proposed class notice form and procedure are adequate.
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?”
The scope of the class release must be limited to the claims arising out of the claims in the complaint where the named plaintiffs are typical and can adequately represent the class. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 537-538.) The funding of the settlement is in installments. The settlement has a procedure to distribute funds to the class members promptly.
The Court notes and approves of the plan to distribute the settlement funds with no claims process.
The unclaimed funds will be distributed to Legal Aid at Work. (Agt, para 4.4.3.) This is consistent with CCP 384. Counsel has provided a declaration in support of the motion that provides the information required by CCP 382.4.
The Court will not approve the amount of attorneys' fees and costs until the final approval hearing. The Court cannot award attorneys' fees without reviewing information about counsel's hourly rate and the time spent on the case. This is the law even if the parties have agreed that Defendants will not oppose the motion for fees. (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 438, 450-451.)
"Because absent class members are not directly involved in the proceedings, oversight to ensure settlements are fair and untainted by conflict is the responsibility of both the class representative and the court." (Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219, 227.)
"[T]horough judicial review of fee applications is required in all class action settlements and the fairness of the fees must be assessed independently of determining the fairness of the substantive settlement terms. (Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 555-556.)
The court sets out its standard analysis below. Counsel may address that analysis in the fee application.
The Ninth Circuits benchmark is 25%. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495.)
This court's benchmark for fees is 30% of the total fund. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 fn 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn 11.) The court recently reviewed and reaffirmed its use of a benchmark of 30%. (Hurtubise v. Sutter East Bay Hosp. (2021) 2021 WL 11134912.)
When cross-checking with the lodestar/multiplier, the court will evaluate the lodestar based on
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV097081: ANSIS vs PREMIER SENIOR CARE GROUP CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by Lorelai Ansis (Plaintiff) CRS# 321683067797 in Department 21 reasonable fees that would have been charged at hourly rates and then apply a multiplier. The multiplier includes contingent fee risk and other factors.
When considering risk, the court considers there is less risk in a case with fee shifting statutes because counsel's potential fees are not limited by and coupled to the monetary recovery. "The law does not mandate ... that attorney fees bear a percentage relationship to the ultimate recovery of damages in a civil rights case." (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407, 419.) (See also Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1006-1007.)
The Court will not decide the amount of any service award until the final approval hearing. Plaintiff must provide evidence regarding the nature of his participation in the action, including a description of his specific actions and the amount of time he committed to the prosecution of the case. (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.) The court's standard service award is $7,500.
The Court ORDERS that the final approval hearing is set for 10/20/26.
The Court ORDERS that funds not be distributed to the cy pres beneficiary until after Court approval of a final accounting.
The Court ORDERS that 10% of any fee award to be kept in the administrator's trust fund until the completion of the distribution process and Court approval of a final accounting.
The Court will set a compliance hearing after the completion of the distribution process and the expiration of the time to cash checks for counsel for plaintiff and the Administrator to comply with CCP 384(b) and to submit a summary accounting how the funds have been distributed to the class members and the status of any unresolved issues. If the distribution is completed, the Court will at that time order distribution of the cy pres funds and release any hold-back of attorney fees.
The court ORDERS that at the time of the final accounting that counsel for plaintiff transmit a copy of this order and the final judgment and the final accounting to the Judicial Council. (CCP 384.5; Govt Code 68520.)
The court will sign the proposed order, which is modified by this order. Plaintiff must reserve a hearing for the motion for final approval.
PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV097081: ANSIS vs PREMIER SENIOR CARE GROUP CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by Lorelai Ansis (Plaintiff) CRS# 321683067797 in Department 21 opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the courts website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.
If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, parties to appear, please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.