Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV02956, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02956    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 9

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Department SSC-9

Hon. Elaine Lu

Yolanda Soto v. MD Hydration Inc. et al.

Case No.: 24STCV02956

Hearing: February 20, 2025 c/f February 13, 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 Settlement Agreement are:

A.         The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $1,830,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

B.         The Net Settlement Amount is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $610,000 (33 1/3%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o   Up to $18,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.2.1);

o   Up to $10,995 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o   Payment of $137,250 (75% of $183,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.2.5)

C.         Employer’s share of the payroll taxes on the taxable portion of the settlement payments shall be paid separately from the GSA by Defendant.  (¶3.1)

D.         Plaintiffs shall release Defendants from claims described herein.

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must be filed by August 16, 2025 and shall be heard on August 19, 2025 at 10 am.

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  August 23, 2025, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour class action. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff YOLANDA SOTO (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants MD HYDRATION INC. and BRETT FLORIE (“Defendants”) in the Superior Court for the State of California, in Los Angeles, Case Number 24STCV02956. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the “Operative Complaint”), alleging: (1) Failure to Compensate All Hours Worked; (2) Failure to Provide Proper Wage Statements; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime; (5) Missed Rest Breaks; (6) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (7) Unfair Business Practices; and (8) Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) Remedies for IWC Wage Order and Labor Code Violations.

On September 3, 2024, the parties attended a full day of mediation with the Honorable Carl West, where they reached a settlement. A fully executed copy of the Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on December 5, 2024 attached to the Declaration Of Young W. Ryu (“Ryu Decl.”), as Exhibit A.

On February 13, 2025 the Court continued Preliminary Approval for Counsel to address deficiencies with the settlement. On February 14, 2025, Counsel filed a fully executed amended Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Young W. Ryu. (“Ryu Supp. Decl.”).

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

SETTLEMENT CLASS DEFINITION

·         “Class Member(s)” or "Settlement Class." All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in the State of California at any time during the Class Period. This includes either a Participating Class Member or Non-Participating Class Member. (¶1.8)

o   “Class Period” means the period beginning February 2, 2020, through January 27, 2025. (¶1.11)

·         Aggrieved Employee." All current and former non -exempt employees of Defendant employed in California at any time during the PAGA Period. (¶1.2)

o   “PAGA Period” The period from December 1, 2022, through the date of judgment on a date fixed by the Court. (¶1.29)

·         The parties stipulate to class certification for settlement purposes only. (¶13.1.)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The essential terms are as follows:

·         The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $1,830,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

o   Escalator Clause. Defendant estimates the number of work weeks during the Class Period to be 22,209. If the actual number of Workweeks encompassed within the Class Period exceeds 22,209 by more than 10%, i.e. 24,430 or more, then, Defendant at its exclusive discretion may either (a) increase the Gross Settlement Amount by a pro rata dollar value for those workweeks in excess of the escalation margin; or (b) end the Class Period on the date on which the number of workweeks is no more than 10% higher than 22,209. Under the latter option, which is hereby exercised, no additional payment is necessary. (¶4.1)

·         The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) ($1,043,755.00) is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $610,000 (33 1/3%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o   Up to $18,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.2.1);

o   Up to $10,995 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o   Payment of $137,250 (75% of $183,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.2.5)

·         Defendants will pay their share of taxes separate from the GSA. (¶3.1)

·         Funding of Settlement: Defendant shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Claims Administrator no later than fourteen (14) calendar days following the Effective Date. (¶4.3)

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

·         Individual Settlement Payment Calculation:  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. (¶3.2.4)

o   Tax Allocation: 1/3 as wages and 2/3 as interest and penalties. (¶3.2.4.1)

·         PAGA Payments: The Claims Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees' 25% share of PAGA Penalties $45,750.00 by the total number of PAGA Period Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee's PAGA Period Pay Periods. Aggrieved Employees assume full responsibility and liability for any taxes owed on their Individual PAGA Payment. (¶3.2.5.1)

o   Tax Allocation: IRS 1099 forms. (¶3.2.5.2)

·         "Response Deadline" means Forty Five (45) calendar days after the Claims Administrator mails Notice to Class Members and Aggrieved Employees, and shall be the last date on which Class Members may: (a) mail Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement, or (b) mail his or her Objection to the Settlement. Class Members to whom Notice Packets are resent after having been returned undeliverable to the Claims Administrator shall have an additional fifteen (15) calendar days beyond the Response Deadline has expired. (¶1.40) The same deadline applies to challenges to workweek calculations. (¶8.6)

o   If the number of valid Requests for Exclusion identified in the Exclusion List exceeds 10% (ten percent)  of the total of all Class Members, Defendant may, but is not obligated, elect to withdraw from the Settlement. (¶9)

·         Uncashed Settlement Checks: Any checks issued by the Claims Administrator to Class Members will be negotiable for one-hundred eighty (180) calendar days. After one-hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of mailing, the checks shall become null and void. Funds associated with cancelled checks will be transmitted 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 the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 384, subd. (b). (¶4.4.3)

·         The settlement administrator will be Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions. (¶1.2)

• Notice of Final Judgment will be posted on the administrator’s website. (Notice, pg. 10)
• The proposed settlement was submitted to the LWDA on December 4, 2024 and the amended settlement was submitted to the LWDA on February 14, 2025. (Ryu Decl., Exhibit 2; Ryu Supp. Decl., Exhibit 3.)

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

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A.     Does a presumption of fairness exist? 

1.      Was the settlement reached through arm’s-length bargaining?  Yes. On September 3, 2024, the parties attended a full day of mediation with the Honorable Carl West, where they reached a settlement. (Ryu Decl., ¶9.)

2.      Were investigation and discovery sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently?  Yes. Counsel represents that prior to mediation, Plaintiff obtained certain information and documents related to MD HYDRATION’s handbook, policies, practices and procedures, including those relating to Defendants’ compensation policies and procedures, employee handbooks, and other corporate policies and procedures relevant to the issues, along with other non-confidential information regarding MD HYDRATION’s employees. Plaintiff also obtained additional documents and information, including sample class member/allegedly aggrieved employees time and payroll records, class statistics, and other class data. The Parties conducted their own evaluation of potential risks and recoveries based on the claims alleged in the Action and from the exchange of information, with Plaintiff engaging an expert to conduct a damage analysis. Counsel further represents that the class data covers approximately a 40% sampling of the class members—a considerable and statistically significant portion.  (Id. at ¶9.)

3.      Is counsel experienced in similar litigation?  Yes.  Class Counsel represents that they are experienced in class action litigation, including wage and hour class actions. (Id. at ¶¶3-7.)

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.

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

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

(Young Decl. ¶¶20-41.) 

       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 $1,830,000 non-reversionary settlement. The $1,830,000 settlement amount constitutes approximately 13.72% of Defendant’s maximum exposure. Given the uncertain outcomes, the settlement appears to be within the “ballpark of reasonableness.”

The $1,830,000 settlement amount, if reduced by the requested deductions, will leave $1,043,755.00 to be divided among approximately 501 class members. The resulting payments will average $2,083.34 per class member. [$1,043,755 / 501 = $2,083.34].

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 final fairness hearing.

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

C.      Scope of the release

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

·         Released PAGA Claims. Upon the Effective Date and upon Defendants fully funding the Gross Settlement Amount, the State of California and all Aggrieved Employees, including those who timely and effectively exclude themselves from the Settlement, shall nevertheless be bound by the Released PAGA Claims and shall receive a pro rata portion of 25% of the PAGA Settlement Amount. Aggrieved Employees shall fully and finally release Released Parties of the Released PAGA Claims only for the PAGA Period. The Released PAGA Claims include any and all claims for penalties asserted in Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice, or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts and claims actually alleged in Plaintiff s PAGA Notice, including, without limitation, Labor Code sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 500, 510, 512, 516, 558, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 2699, et seq., 2699.3, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s).  The Released PAGA Claims will not include any of the underlying wage and hours claims on which the PAGA penalties are premised.  (¶5.1.2)

·         Released Class Claims. Upon the Effective Date and upon Defendant’s fully funding the Gross Settlement Amount, all Class Members (which specifically includes Plaintiff) shall fully and finally release Released Parties of the Released Class Claims. The Released Class Claims include any and all claims, wage and hour claims, rights, demands, liabilities and causes of action of any nature or description alleged/asserted in the Action or reasonably arising from the facts and claims alleged/asserted in the Action. The Released Class Claims include all claims for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code sections 200, 226.7, 512, and 12 California Code of Regulations section 11050; failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code section 1194, et seq.; failure to provide proper wage statement in violation of California Labor Code section 226; failure to timely pay unpaid wages due at time of separation of employment in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records in violations of California Labor Code section 1198.5, as well as claims for unpaid wages, including, but not limited to, failure to pay minimum wages, straight time compensation, overtime compensation, double-time compensation, and interest; failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay and associated claims; wages related to alleged illegal time rounding; failure to pay wages at least twice each calendar month; failure to timely pay wages; failure to timely pay final wages; missed/short/late/interrupted meal period, rest period, and/or recovery period wages/premiums; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods and/or recovery periods; the calculation of meal period, rest period, and/or recovery period premiums; payment for all hours worked, including off-the-clock work; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; deductions; failure to keep accurate records; unlawful deductions and/or withholdings from wages; unfair business practices; penalties, including, but not limited to, recordkeeping penalties, wage statement and payroll reporting penalties, minimum-wage penalties, and waiting-time penalties; and attorneys’ fees and costs related to the Released Class Claims. The Released Class Claims also include but are not limited to all such claims arising under: California Labor Code sections 200, 201, 201-203, 201.3, 202, 204, 204b, 204.1 204.2, 205, 205.5, 210, 221, 223, 224, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 248.5, 432, 500, 510, 512, 515, 516, 558, 1171, 1173, 1173.1, 1174, 1194, et seq., 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, et seq., 1197.5, 1198, 1198.5, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s); 12 California Code of Regulations section 11050; all claims relating to the Released Class Claims under the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.;  the Release shall also include all claims relating to the Released Claims under the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (including, but not limited to, IWC Wage Order Nos. 4-2001, 5-2001, 10-2001 and 8 CCR § 11100) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide right to inspect or copy personnel files, failure to keep accurate records, for civil and statutory penalties, including wage statement penalties, record keeping penalties, reporting time pay, and penalties for personnel file violation. This release excludes the release of claims not permitted by law, including but not limited to claims brought for workers’ compensation benefits. (¶5.2)

·         Released Parties: "Released Parties" means Defendants MD Hydration Inc. and Brett Florie, all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and management companies, each of their former and present directors, officers, shareholders, owners, managing agent, attorneys, insurers, predecessors, successors, and assigns. (¶1.38)

·         Named Plaintiff will also provide a general release and CC § 1542 waiver. (¶5.1)

D.     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 v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 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 v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 240.)

2.      Analysis

a.      Numerosity.  There are approximately 501 class members. (Young Decl. ¶51.a.) This element is met.

b.      Ascertainability.  A class is ascertainable, as would support certification under statute governing class actions generally, when it is defined in terms of objective characteristics and common transactional facts that make the ultimate identification of class members possible when that identification becomes necessary.” (Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 961.)  The proposed class is defined above.  The class members are ascertainable from Defendant’s employment records. (Young Decl. ¶51.a.)

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, regarding commonality, Plaintiff contends that common questions of law and fact predominate because this action involves, inter alia, a determination about Defendants’ alleged failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide meal/rest breaks or provide premium pay in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay final wages when due, and related claims for violations of California’s Business & Professions Code, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699, et seq.  Plaintiff contends these practices affected class members in the same way. (Ryu Decl., ¶51.d.)

As to typicality, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s claims are typical of Class Members’ claims because they arose from the same factual basis and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during the Class Period and subjected to the allegedly unlawful break policies and pay practices at issue in this litigation. (Id. at ¶51.b.)

As to adequacy, Plaintiff represents that she was informed of the risks of serving as class representative, participated in the litigation, and does not have conflicts of interest with the class. (Id. at ¶51.c; Declaration of Plaintiff Soto, 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.

E.      Is the notice proper?

a.      Content of class notice.  The proposed notice is attached 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; attorney fees and costs; enhancement awards; 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.

b.      Method of class notice. Notice will be given in English and Spanish. (¶1.10) Not later than twenty (20) business days after the Court grants after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Defendants will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator, in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. (¶4.2) 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 Claims Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class United States Postal 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 Claims Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class United States Postal substantially in the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. The first page of the Class Notice shall prominently estimate the dollar amounts of any Individual Class Payment and/or Individual PAGA Payment payable to the Class Member, and the number of Workweeks and PAGA Pay Periods (if applicable) used to calculate these amounts. Before mailing Class Notices, the Claims Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (¶8.4.2) Not later than three (3) business days after the Claims Administrator receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Claims 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 Claims Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search, and re-mail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. The Claims 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. (¶8.4.3)

c.       Cost of class notice.  As indicated above, settlement administration costs are estimated to be $10,995. 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.

F.      Attorney fees and costs

California Rule of Court, 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.4^th 1084, 1095-1096; Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4^th 615, 625-626; Ketchum III v. Moses (2000) 24 Cal.4^th 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.4^th 123, 128.)

            The question of whether Class Counsel is entitled to $610,000 (33 1/3%) in attorney fees and up to $18,000 in costs will be addressed at the final 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 by detailing how they were incurred.

G.     Incentive Award to Class Representative

The named Plaintiff will request a service award of $10,000. (¶3.2.1) In connection with the final fairness hearing, the named Plaintiff must submit a declaration attesting to why he should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount.  The named Plaintiff must explain why he “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 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 Settlement Agreement are:

A.         The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $1,830,000, non-reversionary. (¶3.1)

B.         The Net Settlement Amount is the GSA minus the following:

o   Up to $610,000 (33 1/3%) for attorney fees (¶3.2.2);

o   Up to $18,000 for litigation costs (Ibid.);

o   Up to $10,000 for a Service Payment to the Named Plaintiff (¶3.2.1);

o   Up to $10,995 for settlement administration costs (¶3.2.3); and

o   Payment of $137,250 (75% of $183,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA. (¶3.2.5)

C.         Employer’s share of the payroll taxes on the taxable portion of the settlement payments shall be paid separately from the GSA by Defendant.  (¶3.1)

D.         Plaintiffs shall release Defendants from claims described herein.

The Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement must be filed by August 16, 2025 and shall be heard on August 19, 2025 at 10 am.

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  August 23, 2025, 8:30 a.m., Department 9.

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: February 20, 2025                                          ___________________________

                                                                                    Elaine Lu

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court