Gonzalez vs. Greenleaf Engineering

Property Fund/the cy pre recipient. If the settlement funds are not completely disbursed by the report deadline, counsel must request a continuance. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling, including to the LWDA, within five (5) court days, and file proof of service. 108 Gonzalez vs. Greenleaf Engineering

2024-01406008 Case Management Conference

CONTINUED TO 11/19/26 AT 2PM 109 Gonzalez vs. Greenleaf Engineering

2024-01384402 Motion for Approval of Class/PAGA Settlement

Plaintiff Alonso Sanchez Gonzalez’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is CONTINUED to November 19, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102 so that plaintiff can address the issues identified below.

1. Were all moving papers served on the LWDA? Plaintiff must file with the court a proof of service identifying the specific documents served on the LWDA, when plaintiff served the documents, and how service was effected.

As to the settlement: 2. The settlement provides that defendant must have determined, prior to this hearing, whether the escalator provision has been triggered and, if so, made its election of the options the settlement provides. ¶ 8.1. This has not been done.

3. The parties should provide the estimated high, low, and average individual class and PAGA payments.

4. The court prefers a 60-day deadline for objections, requests for exclusion, and disputes. ¶¶ 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.

5. The last two sentences of ¶ 7.6 should be revised to state: (a) the parties shall file with the court all disputes submitted by class members, the evidence submitted, and the resolution of the disputes, and (b) although the settlement administrator may make the initial decision regarding claim disputes, the court may review any decision made by the settlement administrator regarding a claim dispute.

6. The “Released Parties” provision (¶ 1.41) is overbroad and/or vague. The terms “consultants, partners, shareholders, joint venturers, agents,” “accountants, insurers, reinsurers, and/or legal representatives” should be deleted.

7. The releases for both “Participating Class Members” and “Aggrieved Employees” incorporate the definition of the “Operative Complaint.” ¶¶ 5.2, 5.4. According to its definition, the “Operative Complaint” is the “First Amended Complaint.” ¶ 2.7. The court’s file does not reflect that any such amended complaint has been filed.

8. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorneys’ fees equivalent to 1/3 of the gross settlement amount. Absent unique circumstances, the court is unlikely to approve attorneys’ fees in excess of 30% of the gross settlement amount. Plaintiff’s counsel should address at final approval whether any such unique circumstances exist here.

9. Plaintiff seeks an enhancement award in the amount of $7,500. Absent unique circumstances, the court is unlikely to approve an enhancement award in excess of $5,000. Plaintiff should address at final approval whether any such unique circumstances exist here.

As to the notice:

10. The notice should be revised consistent with the above.

11. The same issue identified above applies to defendant’s option to shorten the class period. At 3 ¶ 2. The notice should not reflect an active option.

12. Delete the sentence starting with “Otherwise stated...” At 3 ¶ 3.

13. Delete the heading “Tax Reporting,” but retain the content below it. At 3.

14. The unclaimed funds discussion should also include class members. At 4 ¶ 2.

15. The same issue identified above applies to the definition of “Released Parties.” At 4 ¶ 8.

16. Delete the sentence beginning “You may also refer” on page 6. The second sentence of that paragraph should be merged into the paragraph above it.

17. Inform class members and aggrieved employees that (a) settlement documents will be available on the administrator’s website for at least 180 days following entry of judgment, (b) which occurs after the court grants final approval. At 6.

18. The objection form should not state that use of the exclusion form is mandatory, as that is inconsistent with the settlement.

As to the proposed order:

19. The proposed order should be revised consistent with the above.

20. Remove the attorney information from caption page.

21. Identify and attach the settlement and any amendment(s). ¶ 1.

22. Insert “preliminarily” before “certifies.” ¶ 2.

23. Delete the two sentences beginning with “It further appears...” At 2:24, 2:26.

24. The English and Spanish versions of the notice (including all forms) must be identified and exhibited to the order. ¶ 5.

25. Delete the phrase “which, if not escalated pursuant to the Agreement” from paragraph 7.

26. Delete paragraph 9.

27. Delete the remainder of paragraph 10, beginning with “or Defendant can elect...”

28. Change “deems” to “preliminarily approves” in paragraph 11.

29. Delete the entirety of paragraphs 12-23.

30. Add a paragraph which states the court orders the parties, their counsel, and the settlement administrator to administer the settlement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

31. Propose a realistic date for final approval and provide that all papers are “due at least 16 court days prior” to the hearing. ¶ 24. The Court hears such matters on Thursdays at 2PM.

Plaintiff must file supplemental papers addressing the Court’s concerns no later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the continued hearing date. Plaintiff must also provide redlined versions of all revised papers,

including amended settlement provisions, and an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved with precise citation to any revisions. A supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved is insufficient and will result in a further continuance. If supplemental papers addressing all of the Court’s concerns cannot be filed by the pre-hearing deadline, counsel must request a continuance. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling, including to the LWDA, within five (5) court days, and file proof of service. 110 Fajardo Matute vs. Textile Products, Inc.

2023-01354032 Status Conference 111 Matute vs. Textile Products, Inc.

2023-01354041 Motion for Approval of Class Settlement

CONTINUED ON COURT’S OWN MOTION IN CONNECTION WITH OSC RE SANCTIONS.