DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2022-01289409·orange·ComplexCivil·Class Action
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

Gates vs. Herbalife Manufacturing LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
CX101
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 7, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$35,162.50

Ruling

As to the Notice:

1. Page 8 of the long-form notice says objectors must file their objections with the Court. As discussed above, it suffices for objections to submit objections to the administrator.

2. The long-form notice should make clear that class members may appear at final approval to object even if they didn’t submit a written objection.

3. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?

4. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notices.

The font size in the actual notices (both short- and long-form) may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notices provided to the Court.

3 Gates vs. Herbalife Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval Manufacturing LLC The motion for final approval of class action settlement is continued to 2022-01289409 August 7, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101 for the parties to address the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing must be filed 10 days prior to the hearing.

1. The administrator’s declaration says two class members opted out. The proposed order says no class members opted out. If any class members opted out, they must be identified by name in the proposed order.

2. Please provide Plaintiffs’ estimated individual class and PAGA shares.

3. At preliminary approval, the Court ordered counsel to provide billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes. The Falakassa firm claims a lodestar of $35,162.50 for 48.5 hours at $725 per hour, but no supporting records are attached to Falakassa’s declaration. Please provide billing records for lodestar cross-check purposes.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share