Judge: Glenda Sanders, Case: 2019-01057617, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Approval of Class Settlement 

Procedural Non Compliance

Lack of Bookmarking: The supplemental papers have not been electronically bookmarked. The court’s Tentative Rulings Page provides:

   “BOOKMARKS

    Bookmarking of exhibits to motions and supporting  declarations - The court requires     strict compliance  with CRC, rule 3.1110 (f) (4) which requires electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks with the links to the first page of each exhibit, and with bookmarked titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit. CRC, rule 3.1110 (f) (4).

   The court may continue a motion that does not comply with rule 3.1110 (f) (4) and require the parties to comply with that rule before resetting the hearing.”

Failure to bookmark in the future will result in a continuance.

Tentative Ruling Continuing Motion

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is CONTINUED to the court’s next available date for such a motion, November 4, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the issues below (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 15 calendar days before the continued hearing date. Counsel shall provide red-lined versions of any revised papers.

1.    As of 08-02-22, there are 614 class members, which is nearly triple the size estimated in the original moving papers (213). Counsel’s current simple average class member payment is $811.67. This is a reduction of $1,528.07 from the prior average of $2,339.74, or approximately 34% of the prior average. The settlement does not include an escalation clause and this material change in average payment is not addressed. Why does the $950,000 settlement continue to be fair such that it should be approved?

2.    Counsel for Defendant does not address whether he is aware of any class, representative or other collective action in any other court which asserts claims similar to or the same as those asserted in this action, despite Plaintiff’s citation to that declaration. (Supp. Br. [ROA 204] at 6; Wagner Decl. [ROA 211].)

3.    As to the Proposed Order, it states Amendment No. 1 is attached to the supplemental Aiwazian declaration, which does not exist, and no ROA number has been provided. (ROA 202 ¶ 1.)

                Plaintiffs to give notice.