Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 2021-01194814, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Larissa Marantz and Morghan Gill's Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement  ROA 89

 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to September 22, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.  Any supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than September 13, 2022.  If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.  In addition, Plaintiffs must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supporting papers on the LWDA.

As to the Settlement:

  1. The settlement has an escalator. (¶ 24.) If the number of workweeks in the Adjunct Class exceeds 9,365 by more than 15% (10,770), the NSA allocated to this class (88%) will increase on a pro rata basis for every pay period above. If the number of workweeks in the Reimbursement Class exceeds 4,578 by more than 15% (5,265), the NSA allocated to this class (12%) will increase on a pro rata basis for every pay period above. Since the Settlement Agreement provides that the GSA will not be increased, it appears the escalator rests upon the assumption that workweeks will not increase by more than 15% for both classes. What is the basis for that assumption and, if it were to occur, what would happen?

 

  1. Are there any other actions—class, individual, or PAGA (whether filed in court or in the pre-filing LWDA stage)—that may be affected by this settlement?

 

  1. Please provide a quote from the administrator.

 

As to the Notice:

  1. The Class Representative Service Award (p. 3) implies that up to $7,500 is to be paid to each named Plaintiff. Please revise for clarity.

 

  1. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?

 

  1. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.

 

  1. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.