Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 23STCV20214, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20214    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: 9

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Monica Del Rio v. Golden West Security, Inc.

Case Number: 23STCV20214

Hearing: May 21, 2025 c/f March 25, 2025 c/f January 8, 2025 c/f  May 28, 2024 

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 Settlement Agreement are:

·       The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $960,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

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

o   Up to $319,968  (33%) for attorney fees (¶6.4);

o   Up to $19,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $5,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.1);

o   Up to $10,000 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.2);

o   Payment of $50,000 PAGA penalty (75% or $37,500 to the LWDA; and 25% or $12,500 to the Aggrieved Employees). (¶3.1)

·       Defendant will also pay employer-side taxes. (¶3.1)

·       Plaintiffs shall release 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

This is a wage and hour class action. Defendant provides security services in Los Angeles County and throughout the State of California. On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff a Class Action Complaint against Defendant alleging: (1)Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Lab. C. §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 1197.1); (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 510, et seq.); (3) Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 204, 210); (4) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 201 – 203); (5) Failure to Pay Meal Periods Premiums (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 226.7, 512); (6) Failure to Pay Rest Periods Premiums (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 226.7, 512); (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Cal. Lab. C. § 226); (8) Failure to Indemnify for Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 2800, 2802): (9) Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §17200, et seq.); (10) Failure to Permit Inspection of Employment Records (Lab. C. §§ 226, 432, 1198.5); (11) Private Attorney General’s Act Violation (Cal. Lab. C. § 2698, et seq.).

Counsel represents that prior to mediation, Defendant produced over 8,000 pages of time, wage, payroll and policy records, from which Class Counsel randomly selected time and wage records for a sampling of 50 employee from which aggregate workweeks and pay periods, average hourly rate, average length of shifts and average number of hours worked per week. From this data, Class Counsel estimated the number of allegedly noncompliant meal periods, the amount of allegedly unpaid overtime, and the amount of allegedly unpaid sick time.

On September 19, 2023, the Parties engaged in a full-day mediation with Lynn Frank, and were able to come to  an agreement via mediator’s proposal. Thereafter the parties executed a long-form settlement agreement, a copy of which was filed with the Court on March 22, 2024 attached to the Declaration of Aidin D. Ghavimi  (“Ghavimi Decl.”) as Exhibit 1.

On May 28, 2024, the court issued a checklist of items for counsel to address and continued preliminary approval. In response, on November 25, 2024, counsel filed a fully executed Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Aidin D. Ghavimi  (“Ghavimi Supp. Decl.”) as Exhibit C.

On January 8, 2025, the court issued a checklist of items for counsel to address and continued preliminary approval. In response, on March 11, 2025, counsel filed a partially executed Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Second Supplemental Declaration of Aidin D. Ghavimi  (“Ghavimi 2^nd Supp. Decl.”) as Exhibit C.

On May 25, 2025, the court continued preliminary approval for further revisions. In response, on April 23, 2025, counsel filed a fully executed Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Zachary D. Greenberg (“Greenberg. Decl.”) as Exhibit B.

Now before the Court is the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

SETTLEMENT CLASS DEFINITION

·       “Class Employee" means all non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California during the Class Period. (Settlement Agreement, ¶1.4a.)

o   “Class Period" means August 23, 2019 through November 19. 2023. (¶1.19a)

o   Based on a review of its records to date, Defendant estimates that as of September 26, 2023, there were 470 Class Employees who worked an average of 104 Class Pay Periods. (¶4.1a)

·       "Aggrieved Employee” means all non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California during the PAGA Period. (¶1.4b)

o   “PAGA Period" means June 15, 2022, through November 19, 2023. (¶1.19b)

o   Based on a review of its records to date, Defendant estimates that as of September 26, 2023, there were 137 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 26 PAGA Pay Periods. (¶4.1b)

·       Defendant has represented that there are approximately 53,768 affected workweeks in the period from August 23, 2019, through November 19, 2023. (¶3.2.1)

·       The parties agree to class certification for the purposes of settlement. (¶3.1.a)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The essential terms are as follows:

·       The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $960,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

·       The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($568,532) is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $319,968  (33%) for attorney fees (¶6.4);

o   Up to $19,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $5,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.1);

o   Up to $10,000 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.2);

o   Payment of $37,500 (75% of $50,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.1)

·       Defendant will also pay employer-side taxes. (¶3.1)

·       Funding of GSA: Defendant shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 14 days after the Effective Date. (¶4.3)

·       Within 14 days after Defendant funds the Gross Settlement Amount, the Administrator will mail checks for all Individual Class Payments, Individual PAGA Payments, the LWDA PAGA Payment, the Administration Expenses Payment, Class/PAGA Counsel Fees Payment and Class/PAGA Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment. (¶4.4)

·       There is no claim form requirement. (¶3.1)

·       Participating Class Member Payment:  Class Member settlement shares to participating Class Members will be calculated pro rata based on the number of pay periods worked in the Class Period. (¶3.2.3)

o   Tax Allocation: 20% wages, 40% interest, and 40% penalties. (¶3.2.3)

·       PAGA Payments:  Aggrieved Employee settlement shares will be calculated pro rata based on the number of workweeks worked in the PAGA Period. (¶3.2.3)

o   Tax Allocation: 100% penalties. (¶3.2.3)

·       Response Deadline: The Response Deadline is either sixty (60) days from the Administrator’s mailing of the class notice, or sixty (60) days plus an additional fourteen (14) days (for a total of seventy-four (74) days) for class member notices that the Administrator has to re-mail. (¶7.10)

o   Defendant may, in its sole discretion void the Settlement Agreement if 5% or more Class Members, opt out of the  settlement. (¶4.4.2e)

·       Uncashed Settlement Checks: The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. (¶¶4.4.1a-b) For any Class/Aggrieved Employee whose Individual Class Payment/ Individual PAGA 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/Aggrieved Employee. (¶4.4.3)

·       The settlement administrator will be Phoenix Settlement Administrators. (¶1.2)

·       The Settlement was submitted to the LWDA on March 22, 2024. (Exhibit 3 to Ghavimi Decl.)

·       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?  Yes. On September 19, 2023, the Parties engaged in a full-day mediation with Lynn Frank, and were able to come to  an agreement via mediator’s proposal. (Ghavimi Decl., ¶10.)

2.      Were investigation and discovery sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently?  Yes. Counsel represents that prior to mediation, Defendant produced over 8,000 pages of time, wage, payroll and policy records, from which Class Counsel randomly selected time and wage records for a sampling of 50 employees (9.7%) from which aggregate workweeks and pay periods, average hourly rate, average length of shifts and average number of hours worked per week. From this data, Class Counsel estimated the number of allegedly noncompliant meal periods, the amount of allegedly unpaid overtime, and the amount of allegedly unpaid sick time. (Id. at ¶8.)

Counsel contends that the Parties met and conferred and agreed to review a much larger and second representative statistical sampling, and to that end, Plaintiff’s expert conducted a second more extensive and comprehensive expert analysis of time and pay records for a randomized sampling of 98 individuals from a putative class of roughly 470 Putative Class Members (20.9%), which confirms that Defendant’s exposure aligns with the projections from the initial, smaller sample. (Ghavimi 2^nd Supp. Decl., ¶¶9-10.)

3.    Is counsel experienced in similar litigation?  Yes. Class Counsel is experienced in class action litigation. (Id. at ¶¶35-36.)

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.

1.                              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.)

Counsel has provided an exposure analysis as following:

(Ghavimi 2^nd Supp. Decl., ¶13.) 

     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 obtained a $960,000 non-reversionary settlement. This is approximately 19% of Plaintiff’s estimated recovery, which is within the “ballpark” of reasonableness. 

The $960,000 settlement amount, after reduced by the requested deductions, leaves approximately $568,532 to be divided among approximately 470 class members. Assuming full participation, the resulting payments will average approximately $1,209.64 per class member. [$568,532 /470=$1,209.64.]

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.”

2.                              Scope of the release

Effective on the date when Defendant fully funds the entire Gross Settlement Amount Plaintiff, Class Employees, and Aggrieved Employees, will release claims against all Released Parties as follows: (¶5)

All Class Employees are deemed to release, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, the Released Parties from all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the Class Period facts stated in the Operative Complaint, including those arising from California Labor Code§§ 200, 201,201.5, 202, 203, 204, 205.5, 206, 206.5, 208, 210, 226. 226(a)(1), 226(a)(5), 226(a)(8), 226(a)(9), 226(c), 226(e)(1), 226(f), 226.3, 226.6, 226.7, 226. 7, 226.8, 227.3, 432, 510, 512, 512(a), 551, 552, 553, 558, 558(a)(3), 558.1, 1174(d), 1194, 1 197, 1197.1, 1198.5, 1199, 2800 and 2802, and California Business and Professions Code§ 17200 el seq relating to (a) failure to pay all overtime wages; (b) failure to pay all minimum wages; (c) failure to pay wages, (d) failure to pay for all work, including off-the-clock work (e) failure to provide proper meal periods; (d) failure to authorize and permit rest periods: (e) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (t) waiting time penalties; (g) failure to reimburse necessary expenditures (h) failure to permit inspections of employee records; and (i) failure to timely pay final wages. (¶5.2a)

All Aggrieved Employees cannot opt-out of the PAGA portion of the instant settlement and are therefore are deemed to release, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, the Released Parties from all claims for PAGA penalties that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the PAGA Period facts stated in the Operative Complaint and the PAGA Notices of Plaintiff, including those arising from California Labor Code §§ 200, 201, 201.5, 202, 203, 204, 205.5, 206. 206.5, 208, 210, 226, 226(a)(l), 226{a)(5), 226(a) (8), 226(a)(9), 226(c), 226(e)(l), 226(t), 226.3, 226.6, 226.7, 226.7, 226.8, 227.3, 432, 510, 512, 512(a), 551, 552, 553, 558(a)(3), 558.1, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198.5, 1199, 2800 and 2802, and California Business and Professions Code§ 17200 et seq., relating to (a) failure to pay all overtime wages; (b) failure to pay all minimum wages; (c) failure to pay wages, (d) failure to pay for all work including off-the-clock work (e) failure to provide proper meal periods: (d) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (e) failure to famish accurate wage statements; (I) waiting time penalties; (g) failure to reimburse necessary expenditures (h) failure to permit inspections of employee records; and (i) failure to timely pay final wages. (¶5.2b)

Each Class Employee who does not timely submit a valid opt-out request will release through the date of final approval, any and alI claims contingent or accrued against Defendant and its current and former parents, predecessors or successors, holding companies, affiliated companies or entities (including, but not limited to, owners, shareholders, members, partners, officers, directors, managers, employees, and agents (the "Class Released Parties”) that have been, or could have been, asserted against Defendant or any of the other Released Parties and that arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the Actions (the "Class Released Claims"). (¶4.4.2c)

The named Plaintiff will also provide a general release and 1542 waiver. (¶¶4.4.2d, 5.1)

2.                              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 470 putative class members. (MPA, 15:17-18.) 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. (MPA, 15:10-13.)

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.)

 Here, counsel contends that common questions of law and fact predominate as the main issues are whether Defendant’s meal and rest break policies and practices, and business expense reimbursement, violated California law; if non-compliant, were premium wages paid; and were all wages paid upon termination. (MA, 15:25-16:1.)

Further, counsel contends that Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class because she worked for Defendant during the proposed Class Period and suffered the same alleged violations (meal and rest break, and expense reimbursement, with derivative claims) as did the class as a whole, thus her Plaintiff’s claims fairly represent the claims of the class as a whole. (MPA, 16:9-12.)

Finally, counsel contends that the Plaintiff is an adequate class members because she has no interest which are adverse to the class, and is represented by adequate counsel. (MPA, 16:16-24; Declaration of Plaintiff Del Rio, passim.) 

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. 

3.                              Is the notice proper?

1.      Content of class notice.  The proposed notice is attached as Supplemental Declaration of Zachary D. Greenberg  as Exhibit D. 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 claims 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.

2.      Method of class notice.  Within 14 days, Defendant will simultaneously deliver the Class/Aggrieved Employee Data to the Administrator in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. (¶4.2) The Administrator shall update the class list prior to initial mailing to Class Members by use of the National Change of Address Registry. (¶7.5.a) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than [14] days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class USPS mail, the Class Notice with Spanish translation. Before mailing Class Notices, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (¶7.6) Not later than [3] business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall re-mail 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 re-mail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. The Administrator has no obligation to make further attempts to locate or send Class Notice to Class Members whose Class Notice is returned by the USPS a second time. (¶7.7) If the Administrator, Defendant or Class Counsel is contacted by or otherwise discovers any persons who believe they should have been included in the Class Data and should have received Class Notice, the Parties will expeditiously meet and confer in person or by telephone, and in good faith, in an effort to agree on whether to include them as Class Members. If the Parties agree, such persons will be Class Members entitled to the same rights as other Class Members, and the Administrator will send, via email or overnight delivery, a Class Notice requiring them to exercise options under this Agreement not later than [14] days after receipt of Class Notice, or the deadline dates in the Class Notice, which ever are later. (¶7.9)

Notice of the final judgment will be posted on the administrator’s website. (¶7.13.1)

3.      Cost of class notice.  As indicated above, claims administration costs are estimated not to exceed $10,000. Prior to the time of the final fairness hearing, the claims 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.

4.      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 $319,968 (1/3) 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 $19,000)   by detailing how they were incurred.

5.      Incentive Award to Class Representative

The Settlement Agreement provides for an enhancement award of up to $5,000 for the class representative. In connection with the final fairness hearing, the named Plaintiff must submit declarations attesting to why she should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount.  The named Plaintiffs must explain why they “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 plaintiffs, 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 awards 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 Settlement Agreement are:

·       The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $960,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

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

o   Up to $319,968  (33%) for attorney fees (¶6.4);

o   Up to $19,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $5,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.1);

o   Up to $10,000 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.2);

o   Payment of $50,000 PAGA penalty (75% or $37,500 to the LWDA; and 25% or $12,500 to the Aggrieved Employees). (¶3.1)

·       Defendant will also pay employer-side taxes. (¶3.1)

·       Plaintiffs shall release 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 21, 2025                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                                     Elaine Lu

                                                                                                     Judge of the Superior Court