Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Pimentel v. Madrigal Case No. 24CECG00675
Hearing Date: May 5, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Department 502.
Tentative Ruling:
To grant plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the class settlement.
Explanation:
1. Class Certification The court has already granted certification of the class for the purpose of settlement as part of its order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Nothing has changed since the court granted its order, so the court intends to grant certification of class for the purpose of settlement.
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 lack of objections tends to support a finding that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Therefore, the court intends to find that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
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?”
also preliminarily approved the costs of $7,402.45. There have been no objections to the fees by the class members. Therefore, the court intends to grant final approval of the requested costs.
4. Payment to Class Representatives The court has already granted preliminary approval of a $5,000 service award to the named plaintiff. The class members have not objected to the service award. Therefore, the court intends to grant final approval of the incentive award to the named plaintiff.
5. Payment to Class Administrator The court has already granted preliminary approval of the payment of $9,000 to the class administrator, Simpluris, Inc. No class members have objected to the administrator’s fees. Therefore, the court intends to grant final approval of the administration costs.
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: KCK on 05/01/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
8