Motion for final approval of class settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Line 5 (Calendar Line 19)
Case Name: Brown v. Veoride, Inc. Case No.: 23CV421642
This is a putative class and representative action arising from alleged wage and hour violations. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion and sets a compliance hearing for February 24, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 19.
I. Legal Standard “In general, questions whether a settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.) The trial court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. (Id. at p. 245.)
The most important factor is the strength of the plaintiffs’ case on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.) Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to” the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The trial court must “determine independently whether a PAGA settlement is fair and reasonable,” to protect “the interests of the public and the LWDA in the enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v.
Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 76- 77.) A PAGA settlement may be substantially discounted, and courts often exercise their discretion to award PAGA penalties below the statutory maximum. (Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 504, 529
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?”
II. Terms and Administration of Settlement
A. Provisions of the Settlement This case has been settled on behalf of the following class: [A]ll persons who are or were employed by Defendant in California and classified as non-exempt employees during the Class Period [August 29, 2019, through June 17, 2025], excluding any individuals who previously executed a severance agreement with Defendant that included a general release of claims. (Declaration of Mehrdad Bokhour in Support of Preliminary Approval, Ex. A (“Agreement”), ¶¶ 7, 39.)
The settlement includes a subset PAGA class of Aggrieved Employees, defined as: “all persons who are or were employed by Defendant in California and classified as nonexempt or hourly employees at any time during the Class Period from August 29, 2019, through June 17, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 2.)
Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $625,000, which includes: attorney fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount (i.e., $208,333.33); litigation costs not to exceed $25,000; a PAGA allocation of $20,000 (75 percent of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent of which will be paid to PAGA Employees as individual PAGA payments); a service payment of up to $10,000 to Plaintiff; and settlement administration costs up to $5,000. (Motion, p. 1; Agreement, ¶ 47(a)–(h).)
The net settlement amount will be distributed to participating class members on a pro-rata basis according to the number of workweeks they were employed by Defendant, and individual PAGA payments will be distributed according to the number of pay periods worked. (Agreement, ¶ 48.)
The parties propose that Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions (“Phoenix”) will serve as settlement administrator. The Agreement provides that any funds from uncashed settlement checks will be transmitted to Legal Aid at Work. (Id. at ¶ 73, p. 21:18–19.) The Court approves the cy pres designation.
In exchange for the settlement, the class members agree to release Defendant and related entities and persons from “all claims, transactions, or occurrences, including but not limited to: (a) all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts stated in the [FAC].” (Agreement, ¶¶ 4, 9, 50–51.)
Aggrieved Employees will be deemed to release Defendant and related entities and persons “from all claims for civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.5, that were alleged in the PAGA Notice submitted to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts stated therein, during the PAGA Period.” (Id. at ¶¶ 57–58.)
The release provisions are appropriately tailored to the factual allegations of the operative pleading. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538.)
In its order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, the Court approved Phoenix as settlement administrator. On December 2, 2025, Defendant delivered class data to Phoenix with 250 individuals on the Class List. (Declaration of Lluvia Islas on Behalf of Phoenix (“Islas Decl.”) ¶ 5.)
On December 19, 2025, Phoenix mailed Class Notices to the 250 individuals on the Class List. (Id. at ¶ 5 and Ex. A.) The deadline to request an exclusion, submit a written objection, or submit a dispute was February 2, 2026.
As of the date of Ms. Islas’s declaration, May 6, 2026, Phoenix had received one request for exclusion, zero objections, and one workweek dispute. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–10.) Phoenix estimates the average individual settlement share will be approximately $1,471.60. (Id. at ¶ 14.)
The notice process has now been completed. At preliminary approval, the Court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable. Given that there are no objections, it finds no reason to deviate from that finding now. Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval.
III. Service Award, Attorney Fees and Costs Plaintiff seeks a service award of $10,000. An incentive award is appropriate if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit. Criteria courts may consider in determining whether to make an incentive award include: 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the litigation and; 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation.
These “incentive awards” to class representatives must not be disproportionate to the amount of time and energy expended in pursuit of the lawsuit. (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1394-1395, internal punctuation and citations omitted.)
Service awards are particularly appropriate where a plaintiff undertakes a significant reputational risk in bringing an action against an employer. (Covillo v. Specialty’s Café (N.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29837, at *29.) Plaintiff has provided a declaration describing his work on this case. The Court finds that a service award is appropriate and the amount requested is reasonable under the circumstances. The service award is approved in the amount requested.
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an attorney fee award of $208,333.33 (one third of the gross settlement amount) to be split between two firms. (Memorandum, pp. 9:14–16:2; Declaration of Mehrdad Bokhour in Support of Final Approval, ¶¶ 17–22 (“Bokhour Decl.”); Declaration of Joshua Falakassa in Support of Final Approval, ¶¶ 13 – 19.) Plaintiff’s attorneys state that the combined lodestar for the services of the two firms is $113,787.50. This results in a multiplier of 1.83. The benefits achieved by the settlement justify an award of attorney fees to class counsel. The Court approves an attorney fee award in the requested amount of $208,333.33.
Plaintiff’s attorneys request reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $15,239.27. (Memorandum, p. 16:4–14; Bokhour Decl., ¶ 22.) The Court approves reimbursement of litigation costs in the requested amount. Settlement administration costs are approved in the requested amount of $5,000. (Islas Decl., ¶ 17 and Ex. B.)
IV.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion for final approval of the settlement and sets a compliance hearing for February 24, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 19. The prevailing party shall prepare the order in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
- oo0oo -
4