Motion for Preliminary Approval
Browse all Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
HG21103675: Davis VS Alpha Core Inc 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval; filed by Cameron Sebrell (Plaintiff) + CRS# 328260438701 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 08/04/2026 Patrick McKinney
The Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval; filed by Cameron Sebrell (Plaintiff) + CRS# 328260438701 scheduled for 08/05/2026 is continued to 09/02/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Plaintiffs Justin Davis, Cameron Sebrell, and Erin Hillstead (Plaintiffs) unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement is CONTINUED to September 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
The unopposed motion of Plaintiffs Justin Davis, Cameron Sebrell, and Erin Hillstead (Plaintiffs) for preliminary approval of class settlement, preliminary certification of the proposed class, appointment of class representative and class counsel, appointment of third-party settlement administrator, approval of proposed class notice, and attorneys fees, is CONTINUED to September 3, 2026. While the court largely approves the terms of the proposed settlement, the parties must identify a nonprofit organization or foundation that supports projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons to receive uncashed settlement checks. The continuance will allow the parties to identify such an entity.
To protect the interests of absent class members, class action settlements must be reviewed and approved by the Court. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) California follows a two-stage procedure for court approval: first, the Court reviews the form of the terms of the settlement and form of settlement notice to the class and provides or denies preliminary approval; later, the Court considers objections by class members and grants or denies final approval. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.) The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 23, 2025.
The operative Third Amended Complaint asserts class claims for violation of the California Labor Code and a claim for violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Alpha Core d/b/a Enjoymint Delivered, Rachel Freitas, Saul Nevarez, and The Fuego Group d/b/a Fuego Networx (Defendants) failed to provide rest breaks or reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses.
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?”
The proposed gross settlement amount in this case is $75,000. (Higday Decl., Exh. 1 (Proposed Settlement) at 1.20.) The gross settlement amount is to be allocated as follows: $3,000 incentive awards to each named Plaintiff (Id. at 3.2); attorneys fees not to exceed 25% of the gross settlement amount; reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $5,000; an amount not to exceed $6,500 to the Class Administrator, and the remainder (net settlement amount) to be apportioned to class participants based on the pro rata number of weeks worked by class members during the class period as a proportion of all weeks worked by all class members. HG21103675: Davis VS Alpha Core Inc 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Approval; filed by Cameron Sebrell (Plaintiff) + CRS# 328260438701 in Department 18
The court has reviewed the Proposed Settlements procedures for settlement administration, notice to class members, and opt-out provisions and finds them reasonable. The court approves the parties selection of Phoenix Settlement Administration Solutions to act as settlement administrator.
However, the court does not approve the parties agreement to transmit uncashed settlement checks to the California Controllers Unclaimed Property Fund. The parties must designate a nonprofit organization or foundation that supports projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promotes the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent as the recipient of any unclaimed funds. (Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 384(b); see also § 382.4.) It is the policy of the State of California to ensure that the unpaid cash residue and unclaimed or abandoned funds in class action litigation are distributed, to the fullest extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying class action or causes of action, or to promote justice for all Californians. (§ 384(a).) The Court is not persuaded that sending the funds to the Unclaimed Property Fund is in line with the states policy, as the money is not likely to reach the relevant employees or an appropriate beneficiary.
The requested fee amount of $18,500 is 25% of the gross settlement amount. The court finds the requested amount to be fair and reasonable under applicable authorities. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs unopposed motion for final approval of class and representative settlement is CONTINUED to September 2, 2026.
CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS
Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.