Motion for final approval of class settlement
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
Case No.: 23CV422390
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 11.
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 current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant during the Class Settlement Period [September 13, 2019 through November 3, 2024]. (Declaration of Enoch J. Kim in Support of Preliminary Approval, Ex. 1 (“Agreement”), ¶ 1.34.) The settlement also includes a subset class of PAGA employees who are Settlement Class Members who worked in any pay period during the PAGA Settlement Period (September 13, 2022 through end of Class Settlement Period). (Id. at ¶¶ 1.22, 1.24.)
Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $90,000 on a non-reversionary basis. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2.1) The gross settlement amount includes attorney fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount ($30,000); litigation costs up to $20,000; a PAGA allocation of $5,000: 75 percent ($3,750) will be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent ($1,250) will be paid to PAGA Employees as individual PAGA payments; a service payment of up to $3,000; and settlement administration costs up to $4,940. The parties have jointly selected Apex Class Action Administration (“Apex”) as the neutral entity appointed to administer the settlement.
The Court approves and appoints Apex as the settlement administrator. The Agreement further provides that any residual funds from settlement checks remaining uncashed after the void date (180 days after mailing) will be distributed to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, with the funds to be used in support of the LACY (Legal Advocates for Children) Program. (Agreement, ¶ 4.10.) The Court approves the designated cy pres recipient. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 384, requiring that unclaimed or abandoned class members’ funds be given to “nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent.”)
In exchange for the settlement, the class members agree to release the Defendant and related Released Parties from “any and all federal, state and local law claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action, that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on facts alleged in the operative First Amended Complaint and ascertained in the course of the Action and that arose or accrued during the Class Settlement Period including causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime wage; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) failure to pay vacation wages; (6) failure to provide sick leave; (7) failure to indemnify reasonable and necessary business expenses; (8) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (9) recordkeeping violations; (10) waiting time penalties; and (11) violation of the California unfair competition law (“UCL”) based on the same alleged Labor Code violations; and (12) all claims for interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and any other monetary relief based upon the claims described above and including, but not limited to, pursuant to any Wage Orders, Labor Code §§ 210, 218.5, 218.6, Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.” (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.28, 1.30.)
The Aggrieved Employees are deemed to release Defendant from claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the allegations in the operative First Amended Complaint, the PAGA Notices, and ascertained in the course of the Action and that arose or accrued during the PAGA Settlement Period, including but not limited to claims for violations of the California Labor Code for (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime wage; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) failure to pay vacation wages; (6) failure to provide sick leave; (7) failure to indemnify reasonable and necessary business expenses; (8) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (9) recordkeeping violations; (10) waiting time penalties; and (11) violations of or claims for civil penalties under Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, 218.6, 226, 226.4, 226.7, 227.3, 245, et seq, 510, 512, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1199, 2699, et seq, and 2802.” (Agreement, ¶ 1.29.)
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 Apex as settlement administrator. On December 23, 2025, Defendant delivered class data to Apex for the 42 individuals on the Class List. (Declaration of Norma Ayala from Apex (“Ayala Decl.”) ¶ 5.) On January 21, 2026, Apex mailed Class Notices to the 42 individuals on the Class List and subsequently remailed the notice to an updated address. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–8 and Ex. A.) The deadline to request an exclusion, submit a written objection, or submit a dispute was March 23, 2026, or April 6, 2026 for those who received a remailed notice. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
As of the date of Ms. Ayala’s declaration, April 20, 2026, Apex had received one request for exclusion, zero objections, and zero workweek disputes. (Id. at ¶¶ 10–12.) Apex estimates the average individual settlement share will be approximately $600.00. (Id. at ¶ 15.) 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 $3,000. Plaintiff has provided a declaration describing her work on this case, which has included initial time investigating claims, meeting with attorneys, mediation preparation and participating in mediation, communicating with class counsel, gathering relevant documents, identifying witnesses. The Court finds that a service award is appropriate and the amount requested is reasonable. The service award is approved in the amount requested.
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an attorney fee award of $30,000 (one third of the gross settlement amount). (Memorandum, pp. 17:23–21:26; Declaration of Enoch Kim in Support of Final Approval, ¶¶ 14–43 (“Kim Decl.”); Declaration of David Yereian in Support of Final Approval, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the combined lodestar for this action is $93,609.00. (Kim Decl., ¶ 37.) This results in a negative multiplier. 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 $30,000.
Plaintiff’s attorneys request reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $13,702.10 and they provide an itemized list in support. (Memorandum, pp. 21:27–22:7; Kim Decl., ¶¶ 14, 50 and Ex. 10.) The Court approves reimbursement of litigation costs in the requested amount. Settlement administration costs are approved in the requested amount of $4,940. (Ayala Decl., ¶ 18.)
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 11.
The prevailing party shall prepare the order in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
Calendar Line 5
Case Name: Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.