DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2023-01320258·orange·ComplexCivil·Civil
Hearing todayOff calendar

Hernandez v. Islands Restaurants, L.P.

Hearing date
Sep 10, 2026
Department
CX105
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHernandez
DefendantIslands Restaurants, L.P.

Ruling

8

$94,500 for attorneys’ fees (not to exceed); $20,000 for attorneys’ costs (not to exceed); $7,490 for settlement administration fees (not to exceed); and $20,000 total PAGA penalties ($15,000 to LWDA). The final approval hearing is scheduled for February 18, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX105. The motion for final approval shall be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. See Department CX105 Guidelines for Approval of Class Action Settlements and PAGA Settlements (www.occourts.org). Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. 9 Hernandez v. Islands Restaurants, L.P.

2023-01320258

Off calendar. 10 Martinez v. Auto International Insurance Agency Inc.

2022-01297545

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of an $880,000 class action and PAGA settlement. The court has the following questions and comments: As to the settlement: 1. In the September 25, 2025 order (ROA 119), the court stated that the settlement agreement is undated. This has not been addressed.

2. In the September 25, 2025 order, the court stated that the parties should provide plaintiff’s anticipated total compensation to be received (including for any individual claims and excluding any enhancement payment). Plaintiff has provided her anticipated individual class and PAGA payments, but has not stated whether she anticipates receiving any compensation for any individual claims. Does plaintiff anticipate receiving any compensation for any individual claims?

3. In the September 25, 2025 order, the court stated that the “Released Parties” provision in paragraph 1.41 of the settlement agreement was overbroad. The “Released Parties” provision in the amendment to the settlement agreement remains overbroad. The following unidentified, ambiguous and/or unrelated third parties should be removed: “consultants, partners,” “joint venturers, agents,” and “accountants, insurers, reinsurers, and/or legal representatives.”

4. In its September 25, 2025 order, the court stated that while it will not determine the amount of attorneys’ fees to be

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