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 Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Recent Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

DAVID S. MURANSKY, ET AL. VS THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., ET AL.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date of Hearing: October 26, 2020 Department: SSC-11 Case No.: 19STCV43875 TENTATIVE RULING The Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and finds as follows: (1) The settlement appears to be in the range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be granted final approval by the Court; (2) Grant conditional class certification; (3) Appoint Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens, P.A., Bret L.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KNOX, ET AL. V. AN IMPORTS OF STEVENS CREEK, INC., ET AL.

(See 19 Alcantara Decl., ¶ 16.) 20 The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. 21 The court will set a compliance hearing for February 24, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 22 3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

HECTOR WRIGHT VS. DALLO & CO INC [E-FILE]

No evidence has been presented suggesting that Lee did not actually receive notice of the class action settlement. Class member Lee fails to provide authority requiring that notice of class action settlement must be served on counsel where an unnamed class member is represented in a separate action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PINE MANOR INVESTORS LLC VS. FPI MANAGEMENT INC

The parties report that a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement should be filed within three weeks of the settlement agreement's completion. The Court shall set the next Case Management Conference for February 19, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40. The parties shall file an updated joint statement by 14 days prior to the hearing, with a courtesy copy emailed to [email protected]

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FLORES V. SANTA BARBARA FARMS

On September 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of class certification and class action settlement. The court has read plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,” including the memorandum of points and authorities; the declarations from class attorneys Scott M.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

VENANCIO MIRANDA VS MAXIMUM NURSERY INC

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Final Approval TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted as set forth herein. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Venancio Miranda seeks final approval of a proposed wage and hour class action settlement with defendant Maximum Nursery, Inc. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee for 22 years.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LAVELLE VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

Plaintiffs Alexander Lavelle, David Johnson and Yvonne Alvarado’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative Enhancements, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Judgment Thereon is granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $3,350,000.00, approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ costs only in the amount of $44,443.55, awards enhancements only in the amounts of $7,500.00 each to Alexander Lavelle and David Johnson and $5,000.00 to Yvonne Alvarado,

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JIMENEZ VS FENCEWORKS, INC.

Plaintiff Jose Jimenez’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed on October 7, 2020. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ amended Stipulation of Settlement, attached to the Supplemental Haines Declaration (ROA 82) as Exhibit 1, except for the request to appoint Diana Martinez as class counsel in her own right, which is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

BILLBERRY V HARDY WINDOW COMPANY

Upon receipt of the stipulation, the Court intends to permit filing of the FAC and GRANT preliminary approval of the class action settlement with respect to the amended settlement agreement and amended notice attached to the Supplemental Petronelli Declaration (ROA 93). The motion for final approval shall be heard April 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

STEVENS VS BANK OF ENGLAND [EFILE]

The Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement brought by Plaintiffs Richard Stevens, Benjamin Espinoza, Derek Wilson, John Hempstead, Justin Badum, Mark Connor, Matthew Handlemen, Nicholas Lauko, Sean Martinez, and Sean Diaz, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, is GRANTED. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court awards $8,500.00 for work performed by the Settlement Administrator.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL MURPHY VS. ROCKLER RETAIL GROUP INC

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: This Court is advised that Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is scheduled to be heard in the Law and Motion Department on October 28, 2020. In light of this fact, this Court will set the next Case Management Conference for February 19, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement TENTATIVE RULING DENY Final Approval. The Court has received and reviewed all moving papers and objections and rules as follows. The parties failed to obtain preliminary approval of the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement. Contrary to counsel’s contentions, the Court was neither clearly made aware, nor approved the Addendum.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

ISMAEL PITA VS. FARMERS RICE COOPERATIVE

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: This Court is advised that Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is scheduled to be heard in the Law and Motion Department on January 5, 2021. In light of this fact, this Court will set the next Case Management Conference for February 19, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHAVEZ VS BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS

The motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED subject to final approval of the class action settlement

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

FLORES V. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

., ¶ 15.) 20 The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. 21 The court will set a compliance hearing for May 26, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 3. 22 At least ten court days before the hearing, class counsel and the settlement administrator shall 23 submit a summary accounting of the net settlement fund identifying distributions made as 24 ordered herein, the number and value of any uncashed checks, amounts remitted to Defendant, 25 the status of any unresolved issues, and any other

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

TAYLOR V. CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL RUBBER CO.

Motion: By Plaintiff for Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes and Approval of Class Action Settlement Tentative Ruling: To grant plaintiff’s motion for certification of class for the purpose of settlement and final approval of the class action settlement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JESUS MANCILLA VS DOLLAR TREE STORES INC

Reasonableness of the PAGA Settlement The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a class action settlement is fair. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801(Dunk).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HAROLD ROJAS VS. HOT TOPIC INC

, and Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; (e) preliminarily approves the attorney fees and expenses sought, on the condition that they be paid directly by Defendant and not out of the common fund, subject to final approval at a final approval hearing; (f) preliminarily approves the class representative enhancement, and (g) sets a final approval hearing on _________.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

BARNES VS. AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.

Plaintiff Mark Barnes' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification, Approval of Class Notice, and Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the August 28, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ First Amended Stipulation of Resolution, attached to the Supplemental Han Declaration (ROA 174) as Exhibit 5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

JOHNSON VS. SEASPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Plaintiff Mary Anne Johnson's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to November 20, 2020 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 November 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

PEREZ VS. APERTO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

The average payment must be provided for preliminary approval, but if the high and low estimated payments are not available at this time, they must be provided in the motion for final approval. The Notice of Class Action Settlement explains how the class members’ payments will be calculated and informs the class members whether they did or did not receive a Prior Settlement Payment as well as the estimated settlement payment they will receive.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

JOHNSON VS. SEASPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Plaintiff Mary Anne Johnson's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to November 20, 2020 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 November 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

NGUYEN VS. NORDSTROM, INC.

Paragraph 17 of the notice appears to suggest that only persons who filed objections may speak at the final approval hearing. Please delete this language. The Court will determine who may speak.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

LOPEZ VS OTTNO INC.

Plaintiff's Andres Lopez's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the August 28, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ First Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement, attached to the Supplemental Davenport Declaration (ROA 208) as Exhibit 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

NGUYEN VS. NORDSTROM, INC.

Paragraph 17 of the notice appears to suggest that only persons who filed objections may speak at the final approval hearing. Please delete this language. The Court will determine who may speak.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 102     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.