Final Approval of Class Settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger
Department 5 May 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed
10 CV65934 Chad A. Leonhardt vs. Dodge Ridge Mountain Resort, LLC 02/29/2024
Chad A. Leonhardt Attorney: Enoch Kim
Dodge Ridge Mountain Resort, Attorney: Sue Bendavid LLC Hearing: Other FURTHER - Final Approval 02/29/2024 Complaint File Tracking 08/11/2025 High Density
Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.
This is a wage/hour dispute. Before the Court this day is a petition for final approval of a settlement involving both class and PAGA claims.
As noted in the preliminary ruling on 08/08/2025, and recent hearings, this Court is loath to rubber-stamp line item deductions from the aggrieved employee pool absent some reason to believe the litigation involved something more than neighborly efforts to exchange information and attend a single mediation designed primarily to immunize the employer from competing lawsuits. The concept that these cases are particularly hard or risky presupposes an employer fighting the charges, but a review of the legal billing statements in this case shows that any “fighting” in this case was illusory. The GSA of $450,000 to cover 790 individuals subjected to virtually every wage/hour violation under the sun for more than five years is quite de minimus when considering the potential exposure on the claims exceeded $5M in the aggregate.
Based on these lackluster results, this Court sees no legal basis or justification for any requested upward multiplier. There was nothing unique, difficult or complex about this garden-variety wage/hour dispute. Moreover, the results suggest that there was no real effort to secure the highest and best settlement for the pool of employees.
Counsel’s request to use an hourly rate of $550 is reasonable, and based on the stated actual hours of 152, the produces a comparative lodestar of $83,600 plus paralegal fees of $8,400 – which is roughly 55% of the amount requested. Using a typical 28% contingency fee, that produces a fee of $126,000. This Court elects to “split the difference” and award $105,000 in fees.
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?”
As for the representative enhancements, the parties were forewarned in August that they would be “required to support any request with a detailed declaration of the time and effort expended on this case” and they failed to comply with this simple directive, standing on their previous “I estimate 25/30” hours of effort” declaration. The assertion that they spent time “researching” and talking with their lawyers and preparing for this and that suggests perhaps the 25 hours noted, but asking for $10,000 equates to $400/hr – which is significantly more than the paralegals are charging, and 20x what these individuals earned while working. They shall each receive a fee of $4,000 for their sacrifice.
All other fees/costs are approved except that PAGA allocations have changed (see Labor Code §2699(m) and should be adjusted accordingly in the proposed order.
4/30/2026 3:47 pm