DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV086004·alameda·Civil·PAGA Representative Action
Hearing todayGRANTED in part

MEIGHAN vs HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., A CORPORATION

Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement

Hearing date
Sep 10, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$10,000.00$7,500.00$5,000.00

Parties

PlaintiffAnthony Meighan
DefendantHertz Local Edition Corporation

Attorneys

Norman Blumenthalfor Plaintiff

Ruling

24CV086004: MEIGHAN vs HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., A CORPORATION 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement; filed by Anthony Meighan (Plaintiff) CRS# 630228258774 in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

Plaintiff Anthony Meighan's Motion to Approve a PAGA Settlement is granted in part.

I.

Background

Meighan filed a Complaint against his former employer, Hertz Local Edition Corporation, asserting a representative action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) arising from alleged violations of the Labor Code. (Compl., Aug. 5, 2024.)

In August 2026, the Court continued the hearing on this Motion to permit the parties to narrow the scope of the PAGA release and to designate a cy pres beneficiary for any unclaimed funds. (Order re Mot. Approve PAGA Settlement § II, Aug. 20, 2026.) The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with that order.

The following month, the parties submitted their proposed amendments to the PAGA release and the unclaimed funds. (Puche Decl. Supp. Mot. Approve PAGA Settlement Ex. 1, Sept. 1, 2026.) Concerning the PAGA release, Meighan struck the language that purported to release claims or theories that “could have been reasonably asserted in the Operative Complaint in the Action or Plaintiff’s PAGA Letter and communications with the LWDA based on any of the facts and/or allegations alleged in the Operative Complaint in the Action and/or Plaintiff’s PAGA Letter and communications with the LWDA.” (See id. at ¶ 1.b.) Concerning the unclaimed funds, Meighan designated the Community Law Project, which provides free legal services to low-income and indigent communities in the County of San Diego. (Id. at ¶ 4.4.3.)

II.

Discussion

The Court finds that the PAGA settlement, as modified, is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes. The Court further finds that a $10,000.00 service award to Meighan is reasonable considering the estimated value of Meighan's waiver of individual claims. (See Puche Decl. ¶ 11 (providing argument for upward deviation from the Court’s standard $7,500.00 service award).) The $5,000.00 previously allocated to the service award must be allocated to the PAGA penalties.

III. Orders The Motion is granted in part.

On its own motion, the Court took judicial notice of the Community Law Project’s website, https://cwclp.org. 24CV086004: MEIGHAN vs HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., A CORPORATION 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement; filed by Anthony Meighan (Plaintiff) CRS# 630228258774 in Department 16 Meighan must submit a further revised proposed order for the Court’s review and signature.

***

The Motion re: Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement filed by Anthony Meighan on 07/27/2026 is Granted in Part.

Norman Blumenthal (Attorney) representing Anthony Meighan (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share