What is a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement?

After the Court has held a preliminary approval hearing, it may grant final approval of a class action settlement. (Rules of Ct. 3.769(a); Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.)

In order to grant final approval of a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245.) The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 245.)

“[A] presumption of fairness exists where:

  1. the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining;
  2. investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently;
  3. counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and
  4. the percentage of objectors is small.”

(Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)

The Court also considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

“The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case.” (Wershba v. Apple 18 Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 245.) The court must examine the “proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.” (Id.)

Before final approval of a class action settlement, notice must be given to the class. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.769(e), (f).)

Certification of the class and the awarded attorney fee must also be deemed proper. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 8 Cal.App.4th 1794.)

Useful Resources for Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Recent Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

OZUNA VS. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff Krista Ozuna's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to March 5, 2021 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 February 24, 2021. If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

RODRIGUEZ VS. R.J. NOBLE COMPANY

Plaintiff Michael Rocha's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the December 4, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court also approves the current versions of the class notice, opt-out form and dispute form. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the proposed SAC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JOSE CARRILLO V. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234–235 (Wershba), disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

LATANYA SIMMONS, ET AL. V. APPLE INC., ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234–235 (Wershba), disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ORR V. PETVET CARE CENTERS (CALIFORNIA), INC., ET AL.

(Islas Decl., ¶ 15.) 16 The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. 17 18 The court will prepare the final order and judgment if this tentative ruling is not 19 contested. 1 10. If a party gives notice that a tentative ruling will be contested, any party seeking to participate in the hearing should contact CourtCall. 7 The court does not provide court reporters for proceedings in the complex civil litigation departments.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

REYES VS ASSA ABLOY ACCESSORIES

Motion for final approval of class action settlement and approval of fees, costs and service award TENTATIVE RULING The Court intends to GRANT the motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for approval of fees and costs. The following fees and costs are tentatively approved: attorney fees in the amount of $76,833.33 and litigation costs in the amount of $15,905.90, administrative costs of $8,000 and a representative payment of $5,000.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GONZALEZ VS. ADVANCED DYNAMIC SOLUTIONS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to February 26, 2021 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ELLIS VS. UDR, INC.

The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the current version of the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Settlement. (ROA 173, Ex. J.) The Court also approves the current versions of the class notice, opt-out form and dispute form. The motion for final approval shall be heard on June 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ARANDA VS. TEKWORKS, INC.

The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED for the settlement agreement as currently amended. The Court also approves the current versions of the class notice, opt-out form, and dispute form. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the proposed SAC. The motion for final approval shall be heard on July 9, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SARRAF VS. EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC

Plaintiff Ali Sarraf's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the December 11, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ Stipulation and Settlement of Class and Representative Action. (ROA 141, Ex. 1.) As noted in the December 11 minute order, the Court declines to appoint Joseph Szilagyi as class counsel due to his comparative inexperience.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

PERELTSVAIG V. CARTUS CORPORATION

(Declaration of Asya Pereltsvaig in 7 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and 8 for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Enhancement Award for Class Representative, 9 ¶¶ 2-7.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

YOLANDA M. KIRTLAND, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS PENHALL COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Background Plaintiffs Yolanda M. Kirtland, Natasha Martinelli, and Manny Ruvalcaba-Guzman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, move for an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement entered into with Defendant Penhall Company (“Penhall”). The motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERICA TELLIER VS EL DORADO ENTERPRISES, INC.

(e) Order for final approval hearing - If the court grants preliminary approval, its order must include the time, date, and place of the final approval hearing; the notice to be given to the class; and any other matters deemed necessary for the proper conduct of a settlement hearing. (f) Notice to class of final approval hearing - If the court has certified the action as a class action, notice of the final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SOKMALENA CROSBY, I VS AMERICAN CUSTOM MEATS LLC

The Court will set final approval for 5/12/21, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 10-D. Court will sign the proposed Order submitted with this motion. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

PALMERIN VS GOLDEN STATE MEDICAL SUPPLY

The Court intends to rule as follows; To Grant Plaintiff Maria Palmeri's motion for final approval of the class action settlement. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALGARA VS PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES, INC

The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. The Court finds there is sufficient evidence to believe the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Hearing on a motion for final approval shall be set for May 17, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Counsel shall immediately reserve this date in the court’s Law& Motion Reservation system.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

IN RE THE MINORS COMPROMISE OF RICHO RICHARDSON III

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Including PAGA claims); Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs TENTATIVE RULING Both motions are granted. No objections to either motion were filed or received. The proposed settlement appears fair, reasonable and just based on the court’s review of its own file, the declarations accompanying the motion and the terms and conditions of the previously submitted Joint Stipulation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

TRAN VS. THALES AVIONICS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to February 26, 2021 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

PERKINS VS. CHAMBERLAIN HOME SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Plaintiff Enhancement is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

RANGEL VS. BASSETT DIRECT NC, LLC

Plaintiff Geneieve Rangel's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to February 19, 2021 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 February 9, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

PIRALI VS. DOMAINE CHANDON, INC.

Plaintiff Daniel Pirali's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to February 19, 2021 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 February 8, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

TRAN VS. SILLIKER, INC.

Plaintiff Daniel Tran's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to February 19, 2021 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 February 9, 2021. If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

TRAN VS. THALES AVIONICS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to February 26, 2021 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

PRECIADO VS SIMPLE SIMON'S BAKERY & BISTRO

The notice does not inform class members of the amount of the PAGA settlement and does not explain who are aggrieved employees and that aggrieved employees will receive a PAGA payment even if the person opts out of the class action settlement. The notice suggests that the PAGA settlement will remain even if the court denies final approval of the class action settlement. This is inconsistent with the settlement agreement and the proposed order. ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

CYNTHIA GAMINO V. TRADESY, INC., ET AL.

Class Action Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234–235 (Wershba), disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 109     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.