Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
22
15. The proposed order and judgment should state how notice of entry of the judgment will be given to the aggrieved employees.
16. The proposed order and judgment should state that the court orders the parties, their counsel and the settlement administrator to administer the settlement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
17. The proposed order and judgment should include a proposed date for the final accounting hearing. The final accounting hearing should occur after the deadline to cash checks has expired. The court holds final accounting hearings on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m. The proposed order and judgment shall state that counsel shall submit a final administrator’s report at least 9 court days before the hearing addressing the status of the settlement administration, including the actual amounts paid to the aggrieved employees and the other amounts distributed under the settlement, including any uncashed checks.
The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval is continued to October 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105 to permit the parties to address and respond to the above issues. See also Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). A supplemental brief shall be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing and shall address as necessary each of the above points. If required, an amendment to the settlement agreement shall be submitted, rather than an “amended settlement agreement,” to streamline the court’s review of the documents.
The parties shall provide redlined copies of any revised documents (e.g., revised settlement agreement, revised notice, revised proposed order). Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service. No earlier hearing date is available for this motion. 9 Reyna v. Eagle Community Credit Union
2021-01225885 Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for approval of a $150,000 PAGA settlement. Subject to plaintiff’s submission of the documents identified below, the court grants the motion as follows: No enhancement award to plaintiff; $37,500.00 for attorneys’ fees; $12,857.47 for attorneys’ costs; $4,138.00 for settlement administration fees; and
$95,504.53 total PAGA penalties ($71,628.40 to LWDA). Plaintiff is ordered to submit by June 4, 2026 a proposed order and judgment (including the above amounts) with all exhibits attached (settlement agreement; three amendments thereto; and notice letter (including the above amounts)). The final accounting hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. Plaintiff shall submit a final administrator’s report at least 9 court days before the hearing addressing the status of the settlement administration, including the actual amounts paid to the aggrieved employees and the other amounts distributed under the settlement, including any uncashed checks. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. 10 Rodgers v. No Ordinary Moments, Inc.
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?”
2023-01349601 Off calendar. 11 Rodriguez v. Han.Sam Corp dba River’s Edge Pharmacy
2026-01542228 Defendant Han.Sam Corp dba River’s Edge Pharmacy’s Motion to Compel Arbitration Defendant Han.Sam Corp dba River’s Edge Pharmacy moves for an order compelling plaintiff Cindy Rodriguez to arbitrate her individual claims and dismissing her class allegations. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied. The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract. Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565.
The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. Id. Existence of an arbitration agreement A court resolves a dispute regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement using a three-step burden-shifting process. Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1056. “The arbitration proponent must first recite verbatim, or provide a copy of, the alleged agreement. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 597.) A movant can bear this initial burden ‘by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party’s signature.’ (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1060, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 318.) At this step, a movant need not ‘follow the normal procedures of document authentication’ and need only ‘allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation as provided in rule [3.1330].’ (Condee, supra, at pp. 218–219, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 597.) [¶] If the movant bears its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to identify a factual
dispute as to the agreement’s existence—in this instance, by disputing the authenticity of their signatures. To bear this burden, the arbitration opponent must offer admissible evidence creating a factual dispute as to the authenticity of their signatures. The opponent need not prove that his or her purported signature is not authentic, but must submit sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute and shift the burden back to the arbitration proponent, who retains the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the authenticity of the signature. (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1060, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 318.)” Iyere v.
Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755 (emphasis in original). When an opposing party disputes that he or she signed an arbitration agreement electronically, the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature is authentic. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846; see also Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc. (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1067; Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at 1060 (“[W]e conclude that defendants here met their initial burden by attaching to their petition a copy of the purported arbitration agreement bearing Espejo’s electronic signature.
Once Espejo challenged the validity of that signature in his opposition, defendants were then required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.”). The burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great. Fabian, 42 Cal.App.5th at 1067. Defendant carried its initial burden by submitting the declaration of Genevieve Benjamin. Benjamin, who states she is defendant’s CEO, states that her job duties “include providing leadership and management, spearhead[ing] development, communication, and implementation of growth strategies, collaboration with the executive team, leading the management team, and acting as lead ‘client-care’ officer.”
Benjamin Decl. (ROA 22) ¶¶ 1, 2. Benjamin states that on or about June 12, 2023 defendant extended plaintiff a written offer letter for employment, which plaintiff signed and accepted. Id. ¶ 3. Benjamin states that enclosed with the offer letter was a “Dispute Resolution Agreement” (DRA), which Benjamin states is a “voluntary agreement that expressly provides that disputes arising out of or relating to Plaintiff’s employment would be resolved through final and binding arbitration.” Id. Benjamin states that a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s signed DRA is attached to her declaration as Exhibit 1.
Id. & Ex.
1. Benjamin states that the DRA is maintained in plaintiff’s personnel file. Id. ¶ 6. Exhibit 1 to the Benjamin Declaration consists of an offer letter with enclosed DRA and Confidentiality Agreement. Benjamin Decl. Ex.
1. The offer letter is dated June 12, 2023 and is addressed to “Cindy Rodriguez”; it bears an electronic signature under “acknowledgment.” Id. The DRA and Confidentiality Agreement are both dated June 12, 2023, and each bears an electronic signature next to or above the typewritten name “Cindy Rodriguez.” Id. Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, Benjamin’s declaration and its exhibit carried defendant’s initial burden. See Iyere, 87 Cal.App.5th at 755