Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV00443, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00443    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 9

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Hon. Elaine Lu

Enrique Briseno v. Three Hands Corporation

Case No.: 21STCV00443

Hearing: May 27, 2025

[TENTATIVE] RULING

The Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED as the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The essential terms of the agreement are:

A.      The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $425,000, non-reversionary. (¶C.1)

B.      The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $148,750 (35%) for attorney fees (¶C.2.b);

o   Up to $20,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶C.2.a); and

o   Up to $20,000 for settlement administration costs (¶C.2.c).

C.      Defendants will separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (¶C.1)

D.      Plaintiff’s release of Defendants from claims described herein.

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must be filed by {the Court requests that the parties indicate -- either in submitting to this tentative ruling or at the hearing on this motion -- the filing deadline they would like the Court to set} and will be heard on {the Court will select a hearing date based on the filing deadline that the parties select}.  Failure to file the Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by this deadline will result in a continuance of the final approval hearing to the Court’s first available hearing date, which could be months after the hearing date noted here.  Prior to filing the moving papers, Plaintiff must contact the court staff for Department 9 to obtain a briefing schedule, which must be included in the caption of the moving papers. 

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must include a concurrently lodged single document that constitutes a [Proposed] Order and Judgment containing among other things, the class definition, full release language, and names of the any class members who opted out.

Non-Appearance Case Review is set for {the Court will select a non-appearance case review date based on the filing deadline that the parties select}, 8:30 a.m., Department 9 re filing of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Enrique Briseno sues his former employer, Defendants Three Hands Corporation and Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC, for alleged wage and hour violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of non-exempt employees who, at any time during the period from July 11, 2016, through September 30, 2024: (1) were on the payroll of Defendant Three Hands Corporation and worked for Defendant Three Hands Corporation in California; (2) were on the payroll of Defendant Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC and were assigned to work at Defendant Three Hands Corporation’s facility located in Sylmar, California; and (3) were on the payroll of Defendant Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC and were assigned to work at Defendant Three Hands Corporation’s facility located in Sylmar, California.

On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); (3) Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); (4) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (5) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); (7) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); and (8) Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On March 3, 2022, the parties attended mediation before mediator Kelly Knight, which eventually resulted in settlement via a mediator’s proposal on July 26, 2024. The terms of settlement were finalized in the long-form Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), a copy of which is attached to the Declaration of Douglas Han filed January 2, 2025 (“Han Decl.”) as Exhibit 2.

Pursuant to the settlement, on September 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that updated the “class” definition and added Defendant Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC as a named defendant.

On March 19, 2025, the Court called the matter of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement for hearing and continued the matter for the parties to address certain issues regarding the inclusion of Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC in the settlement despite not being named in the lawsuit.

On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment that added Defendant Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC as a named defendant. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed an Amended Settlement Agreement to address remaining issues related to the amended complaint. All references below are to the Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Douglas Han as Exhibit 4.

Now before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.  

SETTLEMENT CLASS DEFINITION

·       “Class” means all hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who, at any time during the Class Period: (a) were on the payroll of Defendant Three Hands Corporation and worked for Defendant Three Hands Corporation in the State of California; (b) were on the payroll of Defendant Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC and were assigned to work at Defendant Three Hands Corporation’s facility located at 13259 Ralston Avenue, Sylmar, California 91342; and (c) were on the payroll of Defendant Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC and were assigned to work at Defendant Three Hands Corporation’s facility located at 13259 Ralston Avenue, Sylmar, California 91342. (¶A.4)

·       “Class Period” means the period from July 11, 2016, through September 30, 2024. (¶A.11)

·       “Participating Class Member” means a Class Member who does not submit a valid and timely Request for Exclusion from the Settlement. (¶A.25)

·       Class Members and Workweeks: Based on a review of its records to date, Defendants estimates there are a total of 1,139 Class Members who worked a total of 25,423 Workweeks during the Class Period. The breakdown is as follows: (a) 21 employees and 2,586 workweeks for Three Hands Corporation; (b) 829 employees and 20,851 workweeks for Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC; and (c) 289 employees and 1,986 workweeks for Defendant Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC. (¶D.1)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The essential terms are as follows:

E.      The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $425,000, non-reversionary. (¶C.1)

F.       The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($226,250) is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $148,750 (35%) for attorney fees (¶C.2.b);

o   Up to $20,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶C.2.a); and

o   Up to $20,000 for settlement administration costs (¶C.2.c).

G.     Defendants will separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (¶C.1)

H.     There is no claim form requirement. (¶C.1)

I.        Individual Settlement Payment Calculation: Each Participating Class Member will receive an Individual Class Payment calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period; and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks during the Class Period. (¶C.2.d) Non-Participating Class Members will not receive any Individual Class Payments. The Administrator will allocate amounts equal to their Individual Class Payments in the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis. (¶C.2.d.ii)

o   Tax Allocation: Each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payments will be allocated as follows: 20% as wages, 80% as interest and penalties. (¶C.2.d.i)

J.        Response Deadline: “Response Deadline” means forty-five (45) calendar days after the Administrator mails the Class Notice to Class Members and shall be the last date on which Class Members may: (a) fax, email, or mail Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement; or (b) fax, email, or mail his or her Objection to the Settlement. Class Members to whom Class Notices are resent after having been returned undeliverable to the Administrator shall have an additional fourteen (14) calendar days beyond the Response Deadline has expired. (¶A.31) The same deadlines apply to the submission of workweek disputes. (¶G.6.a)

K.      Funding of Settlement: Of the Gross Settlement Amount, Defendant Three Hands Corporation will pay $125,000, and Defendant Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC will pay $300,000. (¶C.1) Defendants shall fund the Gross Settlement Amount and fund all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than the Effective Date. (¶D.2)

o   “Effective Date” means fourteen (14) calendar days after both of the following have occurred: (a) the Court enters a Judgment on its Order Granting Final Approval of the Settlement; and (b) the Judgment is final. The Judgment is final as of the latest of the following occurrences: (i) if no Participating Class Member objects to the Settlement, the day the Court enters Judgment; (ii) if one or more Participating Class Members objects to the Settlement, the day after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from the Judgment; or (iii) if a timely appeal from the Judgment is filed, the day after the appellate court affirms the Judgment and issues a remittitur. (¶A.17)

L.       Disbursement: Within fourteen (14) calendar days after Defendants fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount, the Administrator will mail checks for the Class Counsel Fees Payment, Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, Class Representative Service Payment, Administration Expenses Payment, and Individual Class Payments. Disbursement of the Class Counsel Fees Payment, Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and Class Representative Service Payment shall not precede disbursement of Individual Class Payments. (¶D.3)

M.   Uncashed Settlement Checks: The face of each check shall state checks that are not cashed within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the date of mailing will be voided. (¶D.3.a) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member, thereby leaving no “unpaid residue” subject to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 384, subd. (b). (¶D.3.c)

N.     The settlement administrator will be CPT Group, Inc. (¶A.2)

O.     Notice of Final Judgment will be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website. (¶G.8.a)

P.      Participating class members and the named Plaintiff will release certain claims against Defendants. (See further discussion below)

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1.      Does a presumption of fairness exist?

1.   Was the settlement reached through arm’s-length bargaining? On March 3, 2022, the parties attended mediation before mediator Kelly Knight, which eventually resulted in settlement via a mediator’s proposal on July 26, 2024. (Han Decl. ¶10.)

2.   Were investigation and discovery sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently? Class Counsel represents that after initiating the lawsuit, the Parties engaged in discovery. Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. Defendant responded to the formal discovery requests. The Parties then met and conferred and agreed to engage in an informal exchange of information and eventually remotely attended mediation. (Id. at ¶13.)

Prior to the mediation, Defendant produced documents relating to the policies, practices, and procedures regarding reimbursement of business expenses, paying hourly-paid and non-exempt employees for all hours worked, and meal and rest breaks along with payroll and operational policies. As part of Defendant’s production, Class Counsel reviewed time records, pay records, and information relating to the size and scope of the Class, as well as data permitting them to understand the number of workweeks and pay periods within the Class Period. Putative class members were also located and interviewed to attain an understanding of the extent and frequency of the alleged day-to-day violations. (Id. at ¶14.)

3.   Is counsel experienced in similar litigation? Yes. Class Counsel is experienced in class action litigation, including wage and hour class actions. (Id. at ¶4, Exhibit 1.)

4.   What percentage of the class has objected? This cannot be determined until the fairness hearing. See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 14:139.18, (“Should the court receive objections to the proposed settlement, it will consider and either sustain or overrule them at the fairness hearing.”).

              CONCLUSION: The settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

2.      Is the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable?

1.      Strength of Plaintiff’s case. “The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiff on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.) Here, Class Counsel has provided information, summarized below, regarding the estimated values of the class claims alleged:

(Han Decl. ¶¶34-49.)

         2.  Risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation. Given the nature of the class claims, the case is likely to be expensive and lengthy to try. Procedural hurdles (e.g., motion practice and appeals) are also likely to prolong the litigation as well as any recovery by the class members.

3.    Risk of maintaining class action status through trial. Even if a class is certified, there is always a risk of decertification. (See Weinstat v. Dentsply Intern., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 (“Our Supreme Court has recognized that trial courts should retain some flexibility in conducting class actions, which means, under suitable circumstances, entertaining successive motions on certification if the court subsequently discovers that the propriety of a class action is not appropriate.”).)

4.    Amount offered in settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel estimated Defendants’ maximum exposure at $8,281,206.29 and realistic exposure at $681,224.93. Counsel obtained a $425,000 settlement amount. This is approximately 5.1% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and 62.4% of Defendants’ realistic exposure which, given the uncertain outcomes, is within the “ballpark of reasonableness.”

The settlement amount, after being reduced by the requested deductions, leaves approximately $226,250 to be divided among approximately 1,139 Class Members. Assuming full participation, the resulting payments will average approximately $198.63 per Class Member.  

5.    Extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings. As indicated above, at the time of the settlement, Class Counsel had conducted sufficient discovery.

6.    Experience and views of counsel. The settlement was negotiated and endorsed by Class Counsel who, as indicated above, is experienced in class action litigation, including wage and hour class actions.

7.    Presence of a governmental participant. This factor is not applicable here.

8.    Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. The class members’ reactions will not be known until they receive notice and are afforded an opportunity to object, opt-out and/or submit claim forms. This factor becomes relevant during the fairness hearing.

       CONCLUSION: The settlement can be preliminarily deemed “fair, adequate, and reasonable.”

3.      Scope of the release

Release of Claims. Effective on the date when Defendants fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount and fund all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments or the Effective Date, whichever is later, Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows: (¶E)

·       Release by Participating Class Members: All Participating Class Members, on behalf of themselves and their former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, release the Released Parties from all claims that were alleged, or could have been alleged, in the Operative Complaint and that occurred during the Class Period. This includes, but is not limited to: (a) failure to pay overtime wages; (b) failure to pay meal period premiums; (c) failure to pay rest period premiums; (d) failure to pay minimum wage; (e) failure to pay wages upon discharge; (f) failure to furnish compliant wage statements; (g) failure to reimburse business expenses; (h) unfair competition; and (i) claims under Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, 218.6, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558.1, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 2800, and 2802, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, including, but not limited to, IWC Wage Order No. 7, and claims under Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., that could have been sought based on all claims that were alleged, or could have been alleged, in the Operative Complaint and that occurred during the Class Period. Participating Class Members do not release any other claims, including claims for vested benefits, wrongful termination, violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, unemployment insurance, disability, social security, workers’ compensation, or claims based on facts occurring outside the Class Period. All Class Members who have not opted out will be deemed to have acknowledged and agreed that the Released Class Claims are disputed and that Labor Code section 206.5 is not applicable to their Individual Class Payment. (¶E.2)

·       “Released Parties” means Defendants and their respective past and present parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns, and all their past and present stockholders, owners, members, officers, directors, managers, employees, attorneys, insurers, agents, representatives, and any and all other persons, firms, companies, corporations, and partnerships which may have an interest in Defendants, and any other individual for which liability could have been sought under Labor Code section 558.1. (¶A.29)

·       Named Plaintiff will also provide a general release and CC § 1542 waiver. (¶E.1)

4.      May conditional class certification be granted?

1.      Standards

A detailed analysis of the elements required for class certification is not required, but it is advisable to review each element when a class is being conditionally certified (Amchem Products, Inc. v. Winsor (1997) 521 U.S. 620, 622-627.) The trial court can appropriately utilize a different standard to determine the propriety of a settlement class as opposed to a litigation class certification. Specifically, a lesser standard of scrutiny is used for settlement cases. (Dunk at 1807, fn 19.) Finally, the Court is under no “ironclad requirement” to conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider whether the prerequisites for class certification have been satisfied. (Wershba at 240.)

2.      Analysis

a.      Numerosity. There are approximately 1,139 Class Members. (Han Decl. ¶51.) This element is met.

b.      Ascertainability. The proposed class is defined above. The class definition is “precise, objective and presently ascertainable.” (Sevidal v. Target Corp. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 905, 919.) The class members are identifiable from Defendant’s records. (Han Decl. ¶51.)

c.       Community of interest. “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435.)

As to commonality, Plaintiff asserts common issues of fact and law predominate as to each of the claims. Plaintiff contends that all hourly-paid or non-exempt persons employed by Defendant during the Class Period were subject to the same or similar employment practices, policies, and procedures. All the claims surround the alleged common schemes of: (a) failing to maintain compliant meal and rest break practices; (b) failing to reimburse business expenses; and (c) failing to fully and properly compensate employees for, inter alia, all hours worked, overtime work, noncompliant breaks, and associated wage statement and waiting time penalties. (Han Decl. ¶52.)

As to typicality, Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that he and the Class Members were employed by the same company and injured by the common policies and practices related to: (a) noncompliant meal and rest breaks; (b) uncompensated off-the-clock work; (c) unreimbursed business expenses; (d) untimely paid wages; and (e) inaccurate wage statements. Plaintiff seeks relief for these claims and derivative claims on behalf of the Class. (Id. at ¶53.)

As to adequacy, Plaintiff represents that he has participated in the litigation and is aware of the risks and duties of serving as class representative. (Declaration of Enrique Briseno ¶¶9-19.)  

d.      Adequacy of class counsel. As indicated above, Class Counsel has shown experience in class action litigation, including wage and hour class actions.

e.      Superiority. Given the relatively small size of the individual claims, a class action appears to be superior to separate actions by the class members.

       CONCLUSION: The class may be conditionally certified since the prerequisites of class certification have been satisfied.

5.      Is the notice proper?

1.      Content of class notice. The proposed notice is attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. Its content appears to be acceptable. It includes information such as: a summary of the litigation; the nature of the settlement; the terms of the settlement agreement; the proposed deductions from the gross settlement amount (attorney fees and costs, enhancement awards, and administration costs); the procedures and deadlines for participating in, opting out of, or objecting to, the settlement; the consequences of participating in, opting out of, or objecting to, the settlement; and the date, time, and place of the final approval hearing.

The Notice will be distributed in English and Spanish. (¶A.10)

2.      Method of class notice. No later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Defendants will deliver their respective Class Data to the Administrator, in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. (¶G.4.a) Before mailing Class Notices, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the NCOA. Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than fourteen (14) calendar days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data the Class Notice via first-class USPS mail. (¶G.4.c)

No later than three (3) business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall remail the Class Notice using any forwarding address provided by the USPS. If the USPS does not provide a forwarding address, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search, and remail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (¶G.4.d)

The deadlines for Class Members’ written objections, challenges to Workweeks, and Requests for Exclusion will be extended an additional fourteen (14) calendar days beyond the forty-five (45) calendar days otherwise provided in the Class Notice for all Class Members whose notice is remailed. (¶G.4.e)

3.      Cost of class notice. As indicated above, settlement administration costs are estimated not to exceed $20,000. Prior to the time of the final fairness hearing, the administrator must submit a declaration attesting to the total costs incurred and anticipated to be incurred to finalize the settlement for approval by the Court.

6.      Attorney fees and costs

CRC rule 3.769(b) states: “Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action that has been certified as a class action.”

              Ultimately, the award of attorney fees is made by the court at the fairness hearing, using the lodestar method with a multiplier, if appropriate. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096; Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 615, 625-626; Ketchum III v. Moses (2000) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132-1136.) Despite any agreement by the parties to the contrary, “the court ha[s] an independent right and responsibility to review the attorney fee provision of the settlement agreement and award only so much as it determined reasonable.” (Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 128.)

              The question of whether Class Counsel is entitled to $148,750 (35%) in attorney fees will be addressed at the fairness hearing when class counsel brings a noticed motion for attorney fees. Class counsel must provide the court with billing information so that it can properly apply the lodestar method and must indicate what multiplier (if applicable) is being sought as to each counsel. 

              Class Counsel should also be prepared to justify the costs sought (capped at $20,000) by detailing how they were incurred.

7.      Incentive Award to Class Representative

The Settlement Agreement provides for an enhancement award of $10,000 to the named Plaintiff. In connection with the final fairness hearing, named Plaintiffs must submit a declaration attesting to why he or she should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount. The named Plaintiff must explain why he or she “should be compensated for the expense or risk she has incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 806.) Trial courts should not sanction enhancement awards of thousands of dollars with “nothing more than pro forma claims as to ‘countless’ hours expended, ‘potential stigma’ and ‘potential risk.’ Significantly more specificity, in the form of quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiff, is required in order for the trial court to conclude that an enhancement was ‘necessary to induce [the named plaintiff] to participate in the suit . . . .’” (Id. at 806-807, italics and ellipsis in original.) The Court will decide the issue of the enhancement award at the time of final approval.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED as the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The essential terms of the agreement are:

A.      The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $425,000, non-reversionary. (¶C.1)

B.      The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $148,750 (35%) for attorney fees (¶C.2.b);

o   Up to $20,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶C.2.a); and

o   Up to $20,000 for settlement administration costs (¶C.2.c).

C.      Defendants will separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (¶C.1)

D.      Plaintiff’s release of Defendants from claims described herein.

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must be filed by {the Court requests that the parties indicate -- either in submitting to this tentative ruling or at the hearing on this motion -- the filing deadline they would like the Court to set} and will be heard on {the Court will select a hearing date based on the filing deadline that the parties select}.  Failure to file the Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by this deadline will result in a continuance of the final approval hearing to the Court’s first available hearing date, which could be months after the hearing date noted here.  Prior to filing the moving papers, Plaintiff must contact the court staff for Department 9 to obtain a briefing schedule, which must be included in the caption of the moving papers. 

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must include a concurrently lodged single document that constitutes a [Proposed] Order and Judgment containing among other things, the class definition, full release language, and names of the any class members who opted out.

Non-Appearance Case Review is set for {the Court will select a non-appearance case review date based on the filing deadline that the parties select}, 8:30 a.m., Department 9 re filing of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judicial Assistant is to give notice to Counsel for Plaintiff who is ordered to give further and formal notice to all parties and file proof of service of such within 10 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2025                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                                     Elaine Lu

                                                                                                     Judge of the Superior Court