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

51-75 of 2623 results

ROSSI VS CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.P.

1) Plaintiffs Luis Rossi and Charlie Geissler's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorney Fee Award, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments 2) Motion for Final Approval

  • Hearing

LOGACHEV VS CERNA HEALTHCARE, LLC

Plaintiff Victor Logachev's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and for an Order; 1)Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement; 2)Directing Distribution of Notice of Settlement; and 3)Setting a Hearing for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to December 18, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.

  • Hearing

ROSSI VS CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.P.

1) Plaintiffs Luis Rossi and Charlie Geissler's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorney Fee Award, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments 2) Motion for Final Approval Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: Attorney’s fees in the amount of $252,000, or 30% of the Gross Settlement Amount.

  • Hearing

ADAM HOLT V. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., ET AL.

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. I. Legal Standards for Approving a Class Action Settlement Generally, “questions whether a 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.

  • Hearing

WALSH VS. FRYS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY JIMMY WALSH * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff seeks final approval of a class-action settlement with Fry’s Electronics, Inc. The complaint alleges that Fry’s failed to redeem gift cards with a value of less than $10 for cash, in violation of the “Gift Card Act,” specifically Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2), and other authorities. A. Terms of the Settlement. No monetary payment will be made to the class.

  • Hearing

WALSH VS. FRYS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ATTY ''S FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARE TO CLASS FILED BY JIMMY WALSH * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff moves for approval of his attorney’s fees and representative payment as part of this class action settlement. The motion for final approval is addressed separately. Ordinarily, a class action plaintiff seeks an attorney’s fee of a percentage of the recovery, and the Court requires a lodestar cross-check. (Lafitte v. Robert Half International (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 480, 503.)

  • Hearing

BERGMAN V. BJS&T ENTERPRISES INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiff Michael Bergman's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Award is GRANTED. (ROA 46.) The court instructed Plaintiff's counsel at hearing on the motion for preliminary approval that "the Final Approval Hearing contemplates a single motion. If Plaintiff intends to file any additional motions, such as attorney's fees, those motions must be scheduled separately." (ROA 37.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RUBIO VS PURITY COSMETICS

The Court rules on the motion for final approval of class action settlement as follows: This motion is granted for the reasons stated below. The terms of the settlement are as follows: Defendant Purity Cosmetics (Defendant) has agreed to equitable and monetary remedies in exchange of a release of liability.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANDOVAL VS ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC [E-FILE]

The Court rules on plaintiff Brittney Sandoval's (Plaintiff) motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows: The Court grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement as presented and approves of the proposed forms of notice. In addition, the class shall be conditionally certified for purposes of settlement. Hearing on final approval shall be set at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERICA TELLIER VS EL DORADO ENTERPRISES, INC.

Hearing Date: October 28, 2020 Moving Parties: Plaintiff Erica Tellier and Proposed Class Counsel Responding Party: None Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Leave to File First Amended Complaint The court considered the moving papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED as to the filing of the FAC. Plaintiff is to file the FAC within five days.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEVIN ARATA VS COZAD TRAILER SALES, LLC

The court having read and considered plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed September 28, 2020 and good cause appearing therefrom rules as follows. The plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED. The court proposes that the hearing date for final approval of the class action settlement occur on March 26, 2021 at 9 AM. Hon. George J. Abdallah Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

SIMS VS TRU FORCE CALIFORNIA INC [E-FILE]

Granting Final Approval to the preliminarily approved non-reversionary class action Settlement for a Settlement Sum of $237,000.00, as set forth in the parties' Memorandum of Understanding (the "Settlement Agreement"); 2. Approving the representative enhancement award of $10,000.00 to each Representative Plaintiff as Class Representatives; 3. Approving the payment for settlement administration services provided by ILYM Group, Inc. ("ILYM") in the amount of $5,000.00; 4.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTHONY MEDRANO ET AL. VS PARTY CITY CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The court having read and considered the unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Unopposed Application for Approval of Attorney Fees and Costs, Claims Administration Fees and Class Representative Service Payments filed herein on October 16, 2020 rules as follows. The court having given its preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement on July 15, 2020 the court again finds the class action settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

INIGUEZ VS JENSEN MEAT CO A CORP [E-FILE]

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Iniguez v. Jensen Meat, Case No. 2019-01589 Oct. 30, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations arising during plaintiff's 3-year employment at Jensen Meat.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INIGUEZ VS JENSEN MEAT CO A CORP [E-FILE]

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Iniguez v. Jensen Meat, Case No. 2019-01589 Oct. 30, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations arising during plaintiff's 3-year employment at Jensen Meat.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANTONY MLADINEO ET AL. VS WINE & ROSES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Payments is GRANTED. Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

TOVAR VS NIR WEST COAST

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY JAVIER VEGA TOVAR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Javier Tovar moves for final approval of their class action and PAGA settlement. On December 11, 2019, the Court issued a tentative ruling requiring further documentation before a ruling could be made.

  • Hearing

HARRISON VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC

The Court is inclined to grant final approval, but subject to satisfactory resolution of the following issues at the hearing hereon. The proposed final approval order refers to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release, but should also expressly reference the Amendment to Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, Ex. B to the order granting preliminary approval. The proposed final order should identify October 22, 2020 as the date of final approval.

  • Hearing

MARTIN VS BREAK THE FLOOR PRODUCTIONS LLC [EFILE]

The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUHRSEN VS. PAS MRO, INC.

The Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release, separately filed (as ROA 89) and not otherwise identified in the moving papers, is not signed by Defendants. 2. The release by class members should be limited to (1) the claims pled in the operative complaint and (2) any claims that could have been pled based on the facts alleged in the operative complaint. The release as drafted is overbroad. 3.

  • Hearing

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

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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WOODS V. FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS

Motion: by plaintiff for final approval of class action settlement, award of attorney’s fees and costs, and class incentive award. Tentative Ruling: To deny without prejudice. Explanation: 1. Improper Inclusion of FLSA Claims The Court’s rulings on March 13, 2019 and August 12, 2019 stated the statutory requirements for inclusion of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in the settlement, and denied preliminary approval because such were not met.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 105     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.