Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2020-01171360, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.  Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date.  Counsel should submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement.  Counsel also should provide a red-lined version of any revised papers, including the class notice.  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 and the class notice, rather than with just a supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved.

The motion fails to provide the court with the estimated average, high and low payments to be paid to the class members or aggrieved employees based on their workweeks, information that would enable the court to better evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement.

The allocation of only 20% of the settlement payments for wages appears to be low.  (The class notice says 10% on the top of p. 4.)  The estimated exposure analysis in the motion allocates more than 50% of the class members’ potential recovery to wages.  Either an increase to 33 1/3% or an adequate explanation of why the figure is not at least 33 1/3% is required.

The parties have not provided the court with any declaration from defense counsel as to any potential conflict of interest as to the proposed cy pres recipient, Legal Aid at Work, as required by CCP §382.4.

The settlement agreement should provide for a reasonable extension for the response deadline if a notice packet must be re-mailed.

Rather than having class members prepare their own opt-out requests, the class notice must include an exclusion form that class members can complete and submit.  The form should be referenced in the class notice.

The class notice should add a sentence (at the bottom of p. 3) reflecting, consistent with §9(D) of the settlement agreement, that the Administrator and the parties will attempt to resolve any workweek disputes, but the court ultimately will decide any unresolved dispute.

Section 8 of the settlement agreement provides, “If the Settlement Administration Costs exceed $6,250.00 then such excess will be paid solely from the Gross Settlement Amount and the ACRA Defendants will not be responsible for paying any additional funds in order to pay these additional costs.”  But since the class notice informs putative class members who are considering whether to opt out or object that the administration costs will be “up to $6,250”, the court will not approve any excess being paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount.

The heading for Option 3 on p. 5 of the class notice should be changed from “File an Objection to the Settlement” to “Object to the Settlement”.  Under “Final Approval Hearing”, delete the word “also” in the first sentence.

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 plaintiff’s 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 the LWDA and to defendants.