Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
34-2022-00322346-CU-OE-GDS: Freedom Champion vs. Michelle Moore, LLC 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A
Tentative Ruling
NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Plaintiff Freedom Champions (Plaintiff) motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.
Plaintiff must amend the proposed Class Notice at section 8 to state that the final approval hearing will take place in Department 8A of the Sacramento Superior Court, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 before the notice is sent out.
Plaintiff must amend the proposed Class Notice at section 9 to list the correct case number, the correct Superior Court, and Superior Court contact information.
Overview
On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed this wage and hour class action against Defendants Michelle Moore, LLC dba Bober Tea and Mochi Dough, and Michelle More (collectively Defendants), alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal breaks; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse work-related expenses; (6) inaccurate wage statements; (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (8) unfair competition; (9) violation of child labor laws; and (10) violation of Labor Code section 1301.
On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint adding causes of action for waiting-time penalties and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Prior to mediation, the Parties engaged in informal discovery and data exchange Defendants produced time and pay data, policy documents, class size and workweek information, and information regarding the hourly rates of Settlement Class Members. (Lewis Decl., ¶ 9.) On December 13, 2023, Parties attended a full-day mediation with Jeff Owensby, Esq., during which, the Parties were unable to reach a settlement. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Following mediation, the Parties continued negotiation, and ultimately, reached an agreement in March 2025, to resolve this action. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
The Parties entered into a written settlement agreement and now move for preliminary approval of the class and representative settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and all capitalized terms defined therein shall
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?”
have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement. (Lewis Decl., ¶ 12, Exh. A (Agreement).)
Settlement Class Certification
Plaintiff moves to certify the following settlement Class: All persons who were or have been employed by Defendants within the State of California and classified as nonexempt employees, at any time during the period from June 23, 2018 to the earlier of the following dates: (a) sixty (60) days following the date this Agreement is signed by all Parties and their counsel, or (b) the date the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. (Agreement, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Settlement Period is defined to mean June 23, 2018, to the earlier of the following dates: (a) sixty (60) days following the date this Agreement is signed by all Parties and their counsel, or (b) the date the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. (Id. at ¶ 1.7.)
The Parties stipulated to certification for settlement purposes. (Agreement, ¶¶ 2.9, 3.1.) The Court finds, based on the moving papers, that Plaintiff has established the requisites for class certification. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes only.
Aggrieved Employees
An Aggrieved Employee is defined to mean, [a]ll current and former individuals who were employed as non-exempt employees within the State of California as store managers, assistant store managers, sales leads, associate store managers, key holders, and managers in training, at any time during the period from June 1, 2021 to the earlier of the following dates: (a) sixty (60) days following the date this Agreement is signed by all Parties and their counsel, or (b) the date the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. (Agreement, ¶ 1.23.)
The PAGA Settlement period is defined to mean, the period from June 1, 2021 to the earlier of the following dates: (a) sixty (60) days following the date this Agreement is signed by all Parties and their counsel, or (b) the date the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. (Id. at ¶ 1.25.)
PAGA Members will receive an Individual PAGA Payment regardless of whether they opt out of the settlements class component. (Agreement, ¶ 6.4; Decl., Lewis Decl., Exh. D (Class Notice) at p. 2.) Plaintiffs counsel gave notice of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). (Lewis Decl., ¶ 50, Exh. G.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322346-CU-OE-GDS: Freedom Champion vs. Michelle Moore, LLC 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A
Class Representative
Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative for settlement purposes only.
Class Counsel
The Court preliminarily appoints Drew Lewis, Esq. of Drew Lewis, P.C., as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.
Settlement Administrator
The Court approves ILYM Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator.
Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement
The Court must find a settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable before approving a class action settlement. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244- 245.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) In making its fairness determination, the Court considers the strength of the Plaintiffs case, the risk, expenses, 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 state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Id. at p. 1801.)
In approving a class action settlement, the Court must satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.)
This is a non-reversionary, opt out settlement. Defendants will pay the Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $225,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.15.) Defendants will separately pay the employer portion of payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Ibid.) The following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) a service payment to Plaintiff of not more than $2,500; (2) attorneys fees award equaling not more than 33% of the GSA (estimated to be $73,710.00) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $9,008.59 to Class Counsel; (3) settlement administration costs not to exceed $5,950, absent good cause; (4) Individual Class Member payments; and (5) a PAGA Penalty of $20,000 75% of which ($15,000) will be paid to the LWDA and 25% of which ($5,000) will be paid to PAGA Members. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.15, 6.4-6.6, 6.10; Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 16- 18.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322346-CU-OE-GDS: Freedom Champion vs. Michelle Moore, LLC 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A
For tax purposes, Class Members Individual Payments will be treated as 15% wages and 85% penalties and interest. (Agreement, ¶ 6.7.) PAGA payments will be treated as penalties. (Ibid.) Class Members have 30 days to respond to the Class Notice. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.33.) After one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the mailing of the Individual Settlement Payments and Individual PAGA Payment checks, any remaining funds attributable to unclaimed, undeliverable, or expired Individual Settlement Payment checks and/or Individual PAGA Payment checks shall be remitted to Capital Pro Bono of Sacramento, California, a local non-profit legal services organization. (Agreement, ¶ 6.9.) If the amounts cannot be tendered to that organization, the Parties agree to select an alternative recipient option. (Ibid.)
Disposition
The Court preliminarily finds that all relevant factors support settlement approval. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Class Counsel conducted an investigation into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be within the ballpark of reasonableness. (Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 10-32.) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court also approves the proposed Class Notice subject to the Parties amending sections 8 and 9 as noted at the beginning of this ruling. The Notice shall be disseminated as provided in the Agreement.
The Final Approval Hearing will take place on December 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 8A.
The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with the moving papers. The Court will fill in the information at Paragraph 12(j) regarding the Final Approval Hearing.
Plaintiff must include any request for attorneys fees, costs, and the service award in the final approval motion, not a separately filed motion.
To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at (916) 874- 5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322346-CU-OE-GDS: Freedom Champion vs. Michelle Moore, LLC 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A
If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:
To join by Zoom link https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16108301121
Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.
Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 12/11/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.