MA’AE vs PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].)

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

As discussed in the order granting preliminary approval, 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. Counsel cites significant team member experience in litigating class actions. (Fattahi Decl., ¶¶ 4–11.) The settlement administrator received no written objections in response to the class notice. (Paris Decl., ¶ 12.) The terms of the settlement and notice procedures are generally fair, reasonable and adequate.

The court, however, exercises its discretion to approve a $7,500.00 service award. Plaintiff undoubtedly provided a service to class members and to the state, but the amount of work cited is not unusual, and there is no indication that she was deposed or otherwise undertook unique effort or risk. Thus, the court will not deviate from its benchmark.

The court also exercises its discretion to approve an attorney’s fees award of 30%, rather than one-third, of the gross settlement amount. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495 [citing Ninth Circuit approval of 25% and Eleventh Circuit approval of 20–30% range]; see also Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175 [“Although the trial court would be acting within its discretion to award less than 31 percent, we note that 31 percent is not out of line with awards in class actions, which, like this case, involve attorney fees to be paid by a protected class and that require court approval.”].)

A “court approving a settlement that includes a negotiated fee [] is required to decide if the fee negotiated by the parties closely approximates the value of the attorneys’ work.” (Robbins v. Alibrandi, 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 452.) For cross-checking purposes, Plaintiff’s counsel attests to approximately 167 hours spent on the matter and $120,935.00 lodestar. (Fattahi Decl., ¶ 13.) Applying benchmark reasonable blended billing rate of $600 per hour, the court calculates a $100,200.00 lodestar. The parties settled before dispositive motions or trial, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not cite unusual risks or issues. Under these circumstances, the court will not deviate from its 30% benchmark.

ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV072746: MA'AE vs PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement CRS# 326959278933 in Department 18

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must submit a revised proposed order and judgment within 3 days of notice of entry of this 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 24, 2026, 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 accounting is scheduled for 02/24/2027 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.