Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2018-01019194, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling
The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to September 30, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be reread) at least two weeks before the next hearing date. Counsel must submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement. Counsel also must provide a red-lined version of any revised papers. Counsel also should provide the court with an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved, with references to any corrections to the settlement agreement or the class notice, rather than with just a supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved.
The proposed release is too broad in defining “Released Claims” as “any and all claims made or which could have been made based on the facts arising from any of the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint during the Class Period”. One of the facts alleged in the operative pleading is that the class members all worked for defendant. Thus, any possible labor law violation, rather than just those asserted in this action, would fall under “facts arising from any of the facts alleged”, rendering the release overbroad. Amaro vs. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal. App. 5th 521, 537 (“relate in any way” language in a release must be deleted).
Plaintiff did not provide the court with the estimated high, low or average individual payments to the class members, even though the average payment could have been calculated by dividing the estimated net settlement amount by the estimated number of class members. If the high and low estimated payment amounts are not available now, they must be provided in the motion for final approval.
The settlement agreement provides in §17 at 11:12-13 that the Settlement Administrator’s decision on workweek disputes will be final and non-appealable. The agreement must reflect instead that the Administrator and the parties will attempt to resolve any such dispute, but the court ultimately will decide any unresolved dispute.
The class notice fails to explain how workweek disputes will be handled. The portions of §17 of the settlement agreement located at 11:6-12, followed by the new language about the court’s role, should be included in the class notice in Section III(B).
The first full paragraph of the Class Notice, on line 1, should be corrected to delete “and representative”.
Counsel should propose a realistic Final Approval Hearing date, bearing in mind that all papers in support of the Final Approval Hearing, including detailed hourly breakdowns of plaintiff’s attorneys to support a lodestar cross-check, detailed plaintiff attorney cost breakdowns, an Administrator declaration and invoice, and any new plaintiff declaration to support the enhancement request, must be filed at least 16 calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing date, to provide enough time for court review, and must be served in compliance with CCP notice of motion requirements.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to defense counsel unless notice is waived.