Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01197517, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement previously was continued so that counsel could address several issues identified by the Court. (ROA 45.) While the Court finds most issues have been adequately addressed by the supplemental declaration, several unresolved issues remain. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to September 9, 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 on or before August 30, 2022.  If revised papers are submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.  In addition, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supporting papers on the LWDA.

Counsel must electronically bookmark all exhibits. Filings that do not comply with CRC 3.1110(f)(4) are subject to not being reviewed and the hearing continued. Additionally, for ease of review and to avoid confusion, counsel should address the Court’s identified concerns by the corresponding numbers/sequence. To that end, the numbers below reflect the numbering in the prior Minute Order for which the response remains deficient.

As to the Settlement:

1. Counsel declares an amended PAGA letter was filed on 07-18-22, but it has not been provided for the Court’s review. More importantly, counsel fails to explain how the letter was amended or how amending the letter on this date exhausts PAGA’s pre-filing requirements. (Supp. Srourian Decl. [ROA 57] ¶ 12.)

5. Counsel declares the sample size was 33% and further declares it was representative because no data prior to 2020 was produced. (¶ 10.) The "Class Period" runs from 04-27-17 through 03-26-22. (Settlement ¶ 8.) This means there are approximately 31 months for which no data was produced and the 33% sample over the entire class period is just over 15%. Please explain how that is representative and why no data prior to 2020 was produced or, apparently, sought by Plaintiffs.

6. As to valuations, the FAC added a claim for inadequate seating, but no valuation or discounting analysis has been provided. Additionally, as to penalties, how the valuations were originally derived is not provided.

7. Counsel declares: “On or about July 18, 2022, I filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint per paragraph 7 of the Court’s tentative ruling.” (¶ 13.) No explanation is given as to how this issue has been addressed and no redline of the FAC has been provided. As noted above, a tenth claim for Failure to Provide Adequate Seating has been added, but it is unclear what, if any, additional changes were made to the FAC or how that alone resolves the concerns identified by the Court.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

The Notice should include an opt-out form and make reference to same in the corresponding sections in the Notice.