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

151-175 of 2623 results

CARLA BLACKSHEAR AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE AND SPIRITS LLC

The parties report that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement was granted on August 11, 2020. Plaintiff's motion for final approval is currently set for December 1, 2020. No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: In light of the status of this case, the Court sets the next Case Management Conference for January 15, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PERELTSVAIG V. CARTUS CORPORATION

CONCLUSION 2 The motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is GRANTED, subject 3 to the modification to the class notice. The final approval hearing is set for January 13, 2021, at 4 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

JIMENEZ VS. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to October 30, 2020 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

MANCILLA VS. CALSPEC ENTERPRISES, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. A Final Approval Hearing is set for January 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

VALENZUELA VS. PERFORMANCE BUILDING SERVICES

Plaintiff Hector Valenzuela’s (1) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ROA 587), and (2) the Motion for Class Representative Service Enhancement, Award of Attorney's Fees and costs (ROA 588), are DENIED. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 15, 2018, setting a final approval hearing date of October 31, 2018.

  • Hearing

JACOB BUYS VS. SIZEWISE RENTALS, INC.

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The parties report that Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement has been continued to September 22, 2020, in Department 54. In light of this status, this Court sets the next Case Management Conference for October 23, 2020, at 9:30 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

JACOB BUYS VS. SIZEWISE RENTALS, INC.

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The parties report that Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement has been continued to September 22, 2020, in Department 54. In light of this status, this Court sets the next Case Management Conference for October 23, 2020, at 9:30 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

BRETT SMITH V. KENNEDY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Final Approval Having found that new notice is not required, the Court moves to review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative’s Service Award, and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. As noted above, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

KYRA GROVES ET AL VS MAPLEBEAR INC

“[T]he absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of the proposed class settlement are favorable to the class members.” (Id.) “[A] court may appropriately infer that a class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable when few class members object to it.” (Id. at 685-686.) Here, there has only been a single timely objection to the class action settlement. This factor weighs in favor of final approval.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CASILLAS VS A-L FINANCIAL CORP

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 2. Status Conference The court has reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by plaintiff and finds they address the identified concerns. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval is granted. The Notice submitted by plaintiff in connection with the motion shall be given to the class. The motion for final approval will be heard on January 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

  • Hearing

CASILLAS VS A-L FINANCIAL CORP

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 2. Status Conference The court has reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by plaintiff and finds they address the identified concerns. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval is granted. The Notice submitted by plaintiff in connection with the motion shall be given to the class. The motion for final approval will be heard on January 8, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

  • Hearing

REDIN VS ACCOUNTABILITIES PROFESSIONAL GROUP

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Judgment The hearing on this matter is continued to October 2, 2020 to allow plaintiff to address the issues identified below. It is not necessary for plaintiff to resubmit briefing which has already been filed with the court. Supplemental declarations or other supplemental materials shall be filed on or before September 23, 2020. 1. Please identify a method of informing the class of the final judgment. 6.

  • Hearing

ERNESTO HERNANDEZ VS. ALCO GENERAL CONTRACTORS

Kim and Ronald Makarem in support of plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees and costs. After having read and considered the moving papers and declarations, the Court is satisfied and grants the unopposed class action settlement and for attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff counsel is directed to prepare a proposed order granting the approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees and costs for the Court's signature.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to October 9, 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 September 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

LOPEZ VS. OTTNO INC.

Plaintiffs Andres Lopez and Cheryl Bennett's Motion and Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to October 9, 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 September 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

BOL VS. SNOOZE HIC LLC

Plaintiffs Melanie Bol, Jamie Panipinto, Natalie Werner, Jose Miguel Aceves, Camilla Delahousaye, Jacob Rojas, and Nicko Van Truong's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Affirming PAGA Settlement The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ supplemental submissions. The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: 1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $270,000 or 30% of the GSA.

  • Hearing

MARIA C MARQUINA VS COUNTRY VILLA SERVICE CORP ET AL

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, and based on the findings made in the Court’s February 7, 2020 Ruling, the Court grants final approval of the class action settlement as follows: The Court grants final approval of the class action settlement; The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement; The Court appoints Plaintiffs as Class representatives for settlement purposes; The Court appoints Class Counsel as class counsel for settlement purposes; The Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY, LTD.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Intervene; Motion Approval Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (1) Motion of Jules Vanden Berge to Intervene (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ATTORNEYS For Plaintiff Diane Hightree: Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, Zach Chrzan, Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. For Defendant Amplify, Ltd.: George F.

  • Hearing

E. JENEE SCOTT V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Including PAGA claims) TENTATIVE RULING The motion is granted. 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 Joint Stipulation. The court also notes that the proposed settlement was reached after a full day of mediation with an experienced mediator.

  • Hearing

LAVELLE VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative Enhancements, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Judgment Thereon to October 16, 2020 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. An invoice from the Administrator is required to support its $40,000 fee request.

  • Hearing

KILL VS. ELITE ENFORCEMENT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

1) Plaintiff Christopher Kill's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court is inclined to GRANT Plaintiff Christopher Kill’s motion for final approval of class action settlement contingent upon Plaintiff providing two items of information at the hearing: The name of the class member who asked to be excluded from the settlement. Plaintiff’s estimated individual settlement payout and the low estimated settlement payout. (The Alcantara Declaration identifies the high and average payouts.)

  • Hearing

SANTISTEBAN VS. ROD FRASER ENTERPRISES, INC.,

1) Plaintiff Danny Santisteban's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 2) Motion for Final Approval The Court is inclined to GRANT Plaintiff Danny Santisteban’s motion for final approval of class action settlement provided he discloses at or before the hearing his estimated individual settlement payment. (See ROA 123, at Ruling Page 6, point 24.)

  • Hearing

WIDZER VS. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC.

When plaintiff refiles his Motion for Preliminary Approval, he must provide the court with a copy of “Plaintiff’s separate individual severance agreement and release” as referenced in paragraph 18 of the Joint Stipulation re: Class Action Settlement, and he must notify the class members of that agreement, including the $31,000 settlement amount, in the Notice of Class Action Settlement.

  • Hearing

QUILES VS. KOJI'S JAPAN INCORPORATED

s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental papers filed on August 10 and 11, 2020. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED with respect to the parties’ Amended Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Supplemental Schwartz Declaration. (ROA 2656.) The Court also approves the notice, opt-out form and dispute form attached to the Amended Settlement Agreement.

  • Hearing

NGUYEN VS. NORDSTROM, INC.

1) Plaintiff Trang Nguyen's Motion and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement 2) Status Conference This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Trang Nguyen’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which includes a request for permission to file a proposed first amended complaint (FAC). (Perez Decl. (ROA 364), Ex. 4, at internal Ex. C.) The proposed FAC will add Lydonna Walker as a new plaintiff and class representative alongside Nguyen.

  • Hearing

  « 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.