Motion for Final Approval of Class and PAGA Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Proe v. Xtreme Manufacturing, LLC Case No. 24CECG00068
Hearing Date: July 15, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class and PAGA Settlement
Tentative Ruling:
To grant plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the class and PAGA settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.)
If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will be heard on Thursday July 16, 2026 at 3:30 pm.
Explanation:
1. Class Certification
The court has already granted preliminary certification of the class for the purpose of settlement. Nothing has happened since the court granted its last order that would cause the court to change its determination that the class should be certified.
2. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Settlement
“In determining whether a class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the trial court should consider relevant factors, such as ‘the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’ The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case.” (Wershba v.
Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244–245, internal citations omitted, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)
Here, the court has already granted preliminary approval of the settlement, including finding that the amount of the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. After the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, the class administrator served notice of the settlement on the class members, and no objections or requests for exclusion have been received. The class members’ lack of objections and requests for exclusion supports a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
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?”
While the court previously found that the motion for final approval of the class settlement had been prematurely filed because it was filed before the deadline to object or opt out had expired, the deadline has now expired and no objections or opt out requests have been 6 submitted. Therefore, the court intends to find that the lack of objections supports a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Also, the court previously denied the motion for final approval because the number of class members in the final approval motion was only 197, whereas in the motion for preliminary approval, plaintiff’s counsel represented that there were approximately 336 class members. The court found that plaintiff’s counsel had not explained why the number of class members had been reduced by nearly 50%, or how many workweeks have been used to calculate potential damages and the estimated payment to each class member.
Now, plaintiff’s counsel has explained that the number of class members was reduced to 197 because the settlement administrator discovered that the original estimate of 336 class members was based on incorrect data, including an overbroad class period of January 4, 2020 to August 7, 2024, when the class period was actually March 2, 2022 to August 7, 2024. This resulted in 139 employees being included in the class who should have been excluded. Therefore, the settlement administrator sent out notices to the 197 members, which resulted in three notices being returned as undeliverable. No objections or opt-out requests have been received.
Plaintiff’s counsel has also provided revised estimates of defendant’s potential maximum liability exposure based on the reduced class size and reduced number of workweeks during which violations allegedly occurred. According to the revised data, 197 class members worked 10,034 weeks during the class period. The average rate of pay for each class member was $21.94 per hour. Defendant’s potential maximum exposure for meal break violations was $148,709.32. Its potential maximum exposure for rest break violations was $883,063.06. Its potential maximum exposure for wage statement violations was $157,600. Its potential exposure for waiting time penalties was $197,986.56. Thus, defendant’s total maximum potential liability on all claims was $1,387,358.80.
Based on these new numbers, it does appear that the settlement of $193,580 is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The settlement is approximately 14% of the defendant’s potential maximum liability. Given defendant’s potentially meritorious defenses and the expense and risk of litigating the case through trial and appeal, plaintiff’s decision to settle the case for 14% of defendant’s maximum exposure was reasonable and should still result in an adequate payment to the class. In fact, since the total class is smaller than the parties originally believed, the settlement is actually a larger percentage of defendant’s potential liability.
Each class member should also receive a larger share of the total settlement, as there are fewer class members than the parties previously believed. Therefore, the court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and it will grant final approval of the settlement.
3. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney’s fees of one-third of the gross settlement, or $64,526.67. The amount of attorney’s fees is reasonable in light of the settlement achieved, as well as the work done by counsel on the case. The request for costs of $19,123.82 is also fair and reasonable. Therefore, the court will grant final approval of the requested attorney’s fees and costs.
4. Payment to Class Representative 7
The court has already preliminary approval of the class representative’s incentive payment of $10,000. Given the lack of objections and opt out requests from the class, it appears that no one in the class objects to the payment to the class representative. Therefore, the court will grant final approval of the class representative payment in the amount of $10,000.
5. Payment to Class Administrator
Apex Class Action LLC incurred costs of $6,350 to administer the settlement. The court has already granted preliminary approval of the class administrator payment of up to $8,000. No class members have objected to the payment to the administrator. Therefore, the court will grant final approval of the $6,350 payment to the settlement administrator.
6. PAGA Settlement
The court intends to grant final approval of the PAGA settlement of $8,000. The amount of the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of defendant’s potential exposure and the risks and costs of litigating the case to trial, as well as the danger that the court might reduce any penalties even if plaintiff does prevail at trial. Also, the LWDDA has been given notice of the settlement, and it has not objected to the settlement. Therefore, the court will grant final approval of the PAGA settlement.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: SMC on July 14, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
8