Judge: Gregory W. Pollack, Case: 37-2021-00007280-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-71 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Gregory W Pollack

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00007280-CU-OE-CTL DREMEE VS AURORA-SAN DIEGO LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The Court rules on the motion for final approval of class settlement and award of attorneys' fees, costs and service awards as follows: This unopposed motion is granted for the reasons stated below.

The terms of the settlement are as follows: Defendant Aurora San Diego, LLC (Defendant) will pay a gross settlement of $500,000.00 to the class, which includes attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, a representative enhancement and PAGA payments to the LWDA and the class.

(Blumenthal Dec., Exh. B.) The estimated net settlement is $167,834.00. (Fowler Dec., ¶14.) There have been no objections or opt outs. (Fowler Dec., ¶¶11-12.) Legal Standard. When faced with a motion for final approval of a class action settlement, a court's inquiry is whether the settlement is 'fair, adequate and reasonable.' (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th   1794, 1801 fn. 7 (hereafter Dunk).) California strongly favors settlements. (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 100, 110.) The presumption of fairness exists where, as here '(1) the settlement is reached through arm's length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation, and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.

(Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The factors that courts routinely consider in reviewing a proposed settlement are: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case, (2) the risk, complexity, length, and expense of continued litigation, (3) the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, (4) the amount offered in settlement, (5) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery already undertaken at the time of the settlement, (6) the experience and views of counsel, and (7) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

(7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1166-1167.) Here, Plaintiffs Xavier Dremee, Christina Bonniwell, and Alexis Monroe's (collectively Plaintiffs) presented evidence establishing that the settlement is fair and adequate. (Kuhn Dec. ¶2-3(j).) The parties engaged in arm's length negotiations and extensive investigation and discovery. (Id., at ¶¶6-7.) Finally, counsel for Plaintiff is experienced and skilled in class actions. (Id., at ¶11.) In addition, Defendant does not oppose the following proposed payments: (1) Class representative Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029646  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DREMEE VS AURORA-SAN DIEGO LLC [E-FILE]  37-2021-00007280-CU-OE-CTL payments of $10,000.00 each ($30,000.00 total), (2) attorney fees and litigation costs of up to $166,666.00 and $20,000.00, respectively, (3) claims administration costs of $15,500.00, and (4) LWDA penalties totaling $100.000.00. (Fowler Dec., ¶14.) IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029646  15