What is a Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement?

Useful Resources for Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

Rulings on Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement

1-25 of 10000 results

ORNELAS V. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (D/B/A INSTACART)

The Settlement Agreement calls for the 27 remaining 80% of the net settlement amount to be designated the “PAGA Unpaid Wages 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO APPROVE PAGA SETTLEMENT 1 Amount.” That entire amount is to be paid to the settlement group for unpaid wages under Labor 2 Code section 558. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5(c).) 3 Distributing the entirety of the “PAGA Unpaid Wages Amount” to the settlement group 4 is not permitted under the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

ORNELAS V. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (D/B/A INSTACART)

participation in the case and stating he spent approximately 87 hours on the litigation. 26 (Declaration of Jose Ornelas Supporting Motion to Approve Private Attorney General Act 27 Settlement, ¶ 27.) The Court finds the service award is warranted and it is approved. 28 In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to approve PAGA settlement is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

ELSEUDY VS. COMMUNITY INTEGRATED WORK PROGRAM

The motion to approve the settlement of this action is denied without prejudice to the parties modifying the scope of the release consistent with the discussion above and demonstrating that the settlement has been submitted to the agency in accordance with § 2699(l)(2). The motion to seal the individual settlement is denied. The request to return the individual settlement to the parties is denied. If the Court is to approve the settlement, all of it must be filed in the public record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2016

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MELODY ESQUIVEL ET AL VS. SIMONMED IMAGING, PC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Approve Plaintiffs Individual Paga Settlement Matter on calendar for Wednesday, June 6, 2018, Line 6, PLAINTIFFS MELODY ESQUIVEL, MARGARET CLEE, AND ABNINDER BAINS' Motion To Approve Plaintiffs' Individual PAGA Settlement. Plaintiffs' motion to approve plaintiffs' individual PAGA settlement is denied without prejudice to refiling the motion based on a fuller and more persuasive record. No proof of service of the moving papers on the LWDA.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2018

MILLER, ET AL. V. MATTRESS FIRM, INC.

The bankruptcy was quickly resolved, and on November 27, 2018, the 17 stay on this action was lifted. 18 Before the Court now is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement. Defendants do 19 not oppose the motion. 20 II. SETTLEMENT TERMS 21 The Settlement Agreement was executed by the parties at the end of August 2018. 22 (Decl. of Kyle Nordrehaug in Support of Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement, Ex. 1.) It 23 provides that Defendants will pay $3,750,000 to resolve this matter.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2019

ROMEO VS ADULT PROGRAM SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiff Yvonne Romeo’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement The Motion for approval of PAGA settlement is DENIED. The Court will not approve a PAGA Settlement which seeks to obtain a release for 146 individuals, for multiple alleged violations occurring over 3 and 1/2 years, where the settlement amount is less than 1% of the potential liability. This is especially true where Plaintiff’s individual settlement of $100,000 is 10 times the amount allocated to the PAGA claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

RICARDO AMAYA VS GLENDALE PLUMBING & FIRE SUPPLY INC

BC 709267, to the Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement is SUSTAINED and the Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement is DENIED. The motion for an award of attorneys fees is also DENIED because plaintiff is not yet a prevailing party. The case of Moosheikh Mirzakhanian v. GPFS Franchise, Inc., et al, Case No. BC 709267, is declared to be a related case and is transferred from Department 14 to 78 for all purposes. DATED: August 22, 2018 ________________________________ Hon. Robert S.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROMEO VS. ADULT PROGRAM SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiff Yvonne Romero's Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement For the reasons set forth below, the Court cannot approve the PAGA settlement as currently presented. Counsel for the parties are to appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss the following issues: 1. The renewed Motion is based on the same settlement agreement the Court declined to approve on 10/5/18.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2018

CHRISTINA ZIMMER ET AL VS ADECCO USA INC ET AL

The parties informed the Court on December 12, 2018, that they had reached a settlement. Plaintiffs filed the present Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement on March 13, 2019. Discussion MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT Under PAGA, “t[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NELSON CRUZ VS MARQUEZS CUSTOM CABINETS ET AL

However, the Court wants such information to determine whether there has been a fair and appropriate allocation between the somewhat paltry $1,000 settlement of the PAGA claims in comparison to any settlement of non-PAGA claims. If there was any other settlement, unless this allocation is unreasonable and an attempt to essentially short change the State of its rightful share of settlement funds, this court is likely to approve the pending settlement of the PAGA claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANGUIANO VS GATEWAY AUTO

Plaintiff's Motion for Order Approving Settlement under California Labor Code Section 2699 The motion to approve the PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to June 29, 2018 in order for the parties to address the following issues. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before June 18, 2018. If a revised Settlement Agreement is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions, and additions shall be submitted as well. 1.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2018

MARK QUICK VS. HACIENDA GOLF CLUB

The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement is DENIED. The parties should be prepared to tell the court whether Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the PAGA claim, dismiss the PAGA claim without prejudice, or file a new motion to approve the proposed settlement. Defendant filed a “joint motion” requesting that the court approve the settlement agreement between the parties for the payment of $1,000.00 in PAGA penalties.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

MARCOS RAMIREZ VS HOLBROOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL

Ramirez filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Approving PAGA Settlement on September 13, 2018, which this Court set for hearing on November 28, 2018. No opposition has been filed. Discussion MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT Under PAGA, “t[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KATIA NUNEZ ET AL VS LANGHAM HUNTINGTON PASADENA ET AL

There is no indication as to the amount of the settlement for Ms. Nunez. As part of her complaint, Plaintiff Nunez has also brought a PAGA action. Counsel for both parties now wish the Court to approve a settlement of the PAGA claims. According to the stipulation, “the parties have agreed to a PAGA settlement as to Plaintiff Katia Nunez for the amount of $1,000.” (Stipulation to Approve PAGA Settlement, ¶ 4.).

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EMMANUEL VAZQUEZ VS CAITAC GARMENT PROCESSING INC ET AL

Plaintiff to give notice. DISCUSSION The parties filed a notice of settlement on February 28, 2017. At an ex parte hearing, the court set this matter for a hearing on April 18, 2017. The court also requested supplemental briefing on the question of whether the court may approve a PAGA settlement when it does not have access to the terms of the parties’ non-PAGA claims.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

IBETH GONZALEZ VS KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC

Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement Department SSC-1 Hon. Daniel Buckley Gonzalez v. Kindercare Education, LLC Case No. BC719074 Hearing: October 2, 2019 TENTATIVE RULING DENY approval without prejudice as to Counsel’s ability to bring a noticed Motion for PAGA Approval. The Court will not approve a PAGA settlement based on a stipulation of the parties. Counsel needs to bring a motion for approval and provide the Court with all pertinent information including counsel’s lodestar and costs ledger.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VILLALVAZO JR VS PROGRESSIVE PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Now, however, Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2), requires a Court to approve all aspects of the settlement of any case including a PAGA claim. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion must be continued to allow the plaintiff to provide information relevant to that broader inquiry.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

ALEJANDRO MONTOYA VS TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL LLC ET AL

That portion of the award devoted to PAGA penalties is reasonable and furthers the policies underlying PAGA. The one-third apportionment for attorneys’ fees is likewise reasonable. The Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LAWSON VS. DISCOVERY REALTY

On May 31, 2018, the Court denied the motion to approve the settlement without prejudice, partly because the parties had provided no evidence that the LWDA had been notified of their settlement of a PAGA cause of action, as required by Labor Code section 2699(l).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

BENJAMIN SUNCIN VS H & H AUTO PARTS WHOLESALE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court: (1) approve the PAGA Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”) signed by the parties; (2) approve the proposed explanatory letter to PAGA Aggrieved Employees (“Notice of Settlement”); (3) appoint Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration (“Simpluris” or “Administrator”) as the Settlement Administrator; (4) award Plaintiff $8,000 as a representative service award; and (5) approve Plaintiff’s Counsel’s attorneys’ fees in the

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CINTHYA SAAVEDRA VS CLIFF VIEW TERRACE INC

In November 2017 Cliff View engaged in a settlement campaign whereby many of the employee members of the putative class signed releases of the claims alleged in the SAC. (Gundzik decl. re PAGA, ¶ 6.) Cliff View filed a motion in this court to approve the releases as releasing PAGA claims. (Ibid.) Saavedra opposed the motion, contending that the releasing parties were not authorized to do so and that the releases were invalid. On July 20, 2018, the court denied Cliff View’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CASH VS. AQUATECH POOL SYSTEMS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR AN ORDER APPROVING A PAGA SETTLEMENT FILED BY CHRISTOPHER CASH, AQUATECH POOL SYSTEMS CORPORATION, * TENTATIVE RULING: * The parties have settled this case, which included a cause of action under Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. (commonly and herein referred to as “PAGA”); a PAGA settlement requires Court approval. See Labor Code § 2699(l)(2). The Court first addresses the joint motion to approve the PAGA settlement (the “Motion”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

XXXXXXXXXXX ET AL VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC

Failure to Properly Allocate Penalties On November 8, 2018, the court issued its order denying Plaintiffs’ initial motion for approval of the PAGA settlement, holding that the settlement improperly allocated the entirety of the PAGA penalties to the representative Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a new motion for approval of the settlement on November 28, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

THEODORE COLEMAN HOUSE VS AN TOW INC ET AL

Discussion MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT Under PAGA, “t[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (l)(2).) This court is not aware of any cases definitively establishing what criteria must be satisfied before a PAGA settlement is approved.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CRUZ, ET AL. V. HOLDER CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

The information has been provided to 4 the court and the court will now rule on the motion. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A superior court must review and approve any PAGA settlement. (Lab. Code, § 2699, 7 subd. (l)(2).) The proposed settlement must be submitted to the Labor and Workforce 8 Development Agency (“LWDA”) at the same time it is submitted to the court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.