Motion for Final Approval of PAGA and Class Action Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Case No.: VCU317703 Date: July 13, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Motion for Final Approval of PAGA and Class Action Settlement Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to set the Final Compliance Hearing re: distribution of the settlement fund for January 25, 2027, 8:30 am in Department 9.
Facts and Analysis Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, enhancement award, LWDA payment and class certification for settlement purposes came on for hearing on July 13, 2026. The Court finds and rules as follows:
On June 5, 2026, the settlement administrator Phoenix Settlement Administrators, through its Case Manager, filed a declaration detailing the following events. On March 25, 2026, the administrator received a mailing list of 39 potential class members from Defendant's counsel with names, contact information, social security numbers and relevant employment information. On April 3, 2026, after the administrator processed the names through the National Change of Address Database and updated the list with any updated addresses located, the administrator sent class notice by mail to 39 members, with zero (0) notices returned as undeliverable.
Class members had sixty (60) days, until June 2, 2026 to submit objections, disputes and/or requests for exclusions. Zero (0) requests for exclusion and zero (0) valid objections have been received from class members. Therefore, all 39 Class Members or 100% of the Class will participate in the settlement.
The court presumes the settlement is fair and reasonable given (a) that it was reached through arms-length bargaining at mediation, (b) that there was sufficient time for investigation and discovery since commencement of litigation (c) class counsel have particularized experience with the claims at issue in the case, and (d) there appear to be no disputes or objections. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4 th 1794, 1802.)
A net settlement amount of $115,687.59 is available to pay to the class members in accordance with the terms of settlement. The highest class portion to be paid is approximately $7,909.15 and the average class portion to be paid is approximately $2,966.35. The Court believes basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, in accordance with Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4 th 116, 133.
This case involved extensive informal discovery and investigation of disputed claims, including review and analysis by Plaintiff's expert. The settlement avoids significant risks and delay that would result from further litigation of the case, which would include, amongst other matters, certification proceedings, trial, and the possibility of further delay and cost resulting from appeals.
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?”
Class counsel has provided an updated declaration in support of the requests for attorney fees representing 35% of the gross settlement fund of $235,000 or $82,250. Here, Counsel indicates that the firm has spent 263.1 hours on this case, at rates between $900 and $500 per hour, resulting in a base lodestar of $199,100. (Declaration of Han P.P.10, 11.) Counsel has additionally provided sufficient cost information indicating actual costs incurred in the amount of $11,562.41. (Declaration of Han P.22.) The Court believes the requested attorney fees and costs appear reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, counsel has provided a sufficient declaration to demonstrate adequate previous experience with class actions to further support the reasonableness of the award.
The settlement administrator has provided, in the declaration describing the work it has performed on the case, a value of services totaling $5,500. The Court believes the amount requested as compensation for the administrator appears reasonable.
The settlement agreement designates distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to California Controller's Office Unclaimed Property Division, with an identification of the Participating Class Member to whom the funds belong, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384. The Court previously approved a representative payment of $5,000 and finds that the requested enhancement payment is appropriate under the circumstances.
Finally, the Court confirms its conditional certification of the settlement class. The Court finds no significant events have occurred that would cause it to change its prior determination that the settlement class met all requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 for certification for settlement purposes at the time it granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval. On review of the declarations and pleadings submitted, the Court finds, given the established presumption that the settlement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and, particularly, given the absence of any objection or opposition following the class notice, that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that the motion for final approval should be, and is hereby, granted.
Therefore, the following deductions from the gross settlement of $235,000 are approved as follows: Approved Court Approved Attorney Fees (35%): | $82,250.00 | Approved Attorney Costs (actually incurred): | $11,562.41 | Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff: | $5,000.00 | Approved Settlement Administrator Costs | $5,500.00 | Approved PAGA Payment | $15,000.00 | Approved Net Settlement Amount | $115,687.59 |
The Court shall enter its order of final approval and judgment in this case on the proposed order submitted by Plaintiffs on June 5, 2026. Final Compliance Hearing is set for January 25, 2027, 8:30 am in Department 9.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Corpuz, Ryan T