Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 21-01212242, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling
1. Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
2. Order to Show Cause re: Monetary Sanctions
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL:
RULING:
The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is CONTINUED to October 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX103 so that Plaintiffs may address the issues identified below. An OSC re Sanctions is set for the same date and time to allow the Court to consider sanctions pursuant to CCP Section 177.5 in the event that Counsel is not in compliance with the Court’s Orders issued herein.
Counsel is ORDERED to file supplemental papers addressing the Court’s concerns no later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the continued hearing date. Counsel is ORDERED to provide red-lined versions of all revised papers. Counsel is ORDERED to provide the Court with an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved, with precise citation to any corrections or revisions. A supplemental declaration of brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved, or does not clearly state a specific concern has been resolved, is insufficient and will result in a continuance an/or sanctions pursuant to CCP Section 177.5.
Issues to be addressed:
1. The Class Notice is still not attached as an exhibit to the Proposed Order, and the operative Settlement Agreement is not identified by the ROA number of the declaration to which it is attached.
2. Neither the Class Notice nor the Proposed Order have been revised to state that the Settlement Administrator will provide a copy of the final judgment on its website.
Additional issues to be addressed:
1. The requested enhancement is $7,500.00 for each Named Plaintiff. The Court usually does not approve an enhancement greater than $5,000.00. Plaintiffs’ respective declarations provide only a generally description of their purported involvement with the action, but they do not specifically attest to the approximate number of hours they spent on the case. (ROA 45, 46). At Final Approval, Plaintiffs must submit declarations describing circumstances to justify enhancement, and addressing the factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1272, and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs., LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804, including a more detailed estimate of hours spent on this litigation.
2. The Proposed Order does not include a provision regarding the Court’s continuing jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (ROA 63).
3. The Proposed Order does not include a provision regarding the deadline to submit opt-outs, objections, or disputes after the remailing of the Class Notice. (ROA 63, ¶ 11).
4. The Proposed Order does not provide an actual proposed date for the Final Approval hearing. (ROA 63, ¶ 13).
OSC re Sanctions
An OSC re Sanctions was also set for today with respect to Counsel’s non Compliance with the Court’s prior Orders of 6/23/23.
In response to the OSC re Sanctions pursuant to CCP section 177.5, counsel provided substantial justification for the failure to comply with the Court-ordered deadline. Therefore, sanctions will not be imposed against Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel. However, counsel is advised to be more diligent in observing such deadlines in the future.
Plaintiff to give notice of this Court’s rulings, including to the LWDA, and file proof of service.
The Court does not require any physical or remote appearance at the hearing scheduled for August 25, 2023.