Motion for Attorney Fees; Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval; Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
that he knows how Avionté functions.
AnDek’s motion to compel arbitration is denied. Because Westamerica’s and Vensure’s joinders depend on AnDek proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, the joinders are denied as well.
11 Able Services Wage Motion for Attorney Fees and Hour Cases Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval JCCP 5231 Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court awards the following distributions:
1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,083,333, or 1/3 of the GSA. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by class counsel, a review of the billing records provided, and the estimated lodestar. In particular, the Court notes that the Pyle and Feinberg firms have worked on a contingency in this matter since 2015. The Court further notes these firms’ successful work on appeal, which resulted in a published decision regarding PAGA’s administrative exhaustion requirements. In approving this amount and examining the billing records provided, the Court is not approving any particular hourly billing rates proposed by class counsel.
2. Litigation costs in the amount of $250,505, the full amount sought.
3. Administration costs in the amount of $98,479, per the administrator’s declaration.
4. Enhancement payments of $20,000 to Garibay and $10,000 apiece to Tellez and Uribe. In making these awards, the Court has considered only the factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.
5. Payment to the LWDA of $375,000 per the parties’ PAGA allocation.
Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court a final report on or before March 30, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary.
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?”
Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing.
MOTION TO SEAL
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Hunter Pyle and Exhibit B to the declaration of Genevieve Casey is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to publicly file the unredacted versions of these documents that have been lodged with the Court.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
A court may order a record to be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts establishing:
1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
Plaintiffs move to seal the unredacted versions of their counsel’s billing records. The publicly filed versions redact every single description of work performed across more than 220 pages of records. Plaintiffs argue that making the unredacted records public would expose their “litigation playbook” to competing firms and to defense counsel. But in the Court’s experience, plaintiffs’ counsel in class action matters routinely file unredacted billing records in support of fee requests. From time to time, counsel may redact specific entries that implicate the attorneyclient privilege or the work product privilege, but these are the exception.
Indeed, the proposed redactions here include numerous innocuous, non-descriptive entries such as “Discuss case development during team meetings,” “Team Zoom,” and “Cite-checked reply brief.” It hardly reveals a firm’s “litigation playbook” to disclose that there are internal team meetings or that attorneys cite-check briefs.
If counsel had redacted selected entries for specific reasons, the Court would have considered a sealing request. But a blanket request to redact every single description of work performed, particularly when there appears to be nothing sensitive about nearly all descriptions, is too much.