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

201-225 of 2623 results

DURAN VS BARTELL HOTELS MANAGEMENT COMPANY [EFILE]

TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motion of plaintiff Jose Duran for final approval of the class action settlement is granted. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is granted in the amount of $666,666.66, plus expenses of $12,000. Plaintiff is entitled to an incentive award of $10,000.00. Plaintiff shall inform the court whether there was any effort to inform the class members of the continued hearing date. Additionally, the motion references the first distribution was to be March 12, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDUARDO RUIZ VS. SUTTER HOME WINERY INC

As for the anticipated motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the Court advises counsel that they should proceed to reserve their requested hearing date in the applicable Civil Law and Motion Department 53/54 pursuant to the January 8, 2020 Order and Notice of Re-assignment of Complex Civil Case and Local Rule 2.30. Such motion and, if granted, the subsequent motion for final approval, shall be filed and heard in the Law and Motion Department.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BOCHENEK VS M2 MEDIA GROUP LLC

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Etc. Bochenek v. M2 Media Group LLC, Case No. 2019-25568 August 7, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 (continued from June 19 and July 31) The court incorporates the tentative ruling published July 27, 2020 (ROA 66). At the hearing last Friday, the court inquired of counsel regarding a last minute change in the terms of the settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MANUELA 'AILA' KAHLFUSS VS. CALIFORNIA FAMILY HEALTH LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and Costs Appearances required. Telephonic/remote appearances are allowed. The Motion for Final Approval seeks final approval of a class action settlement filed by Plaintiffs. The Court previously appointed all of the two individual Plaintiffs, Manuela Kahlfuss and Trendete Randolph, as class representatives for purposes of settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YVETTE VAZQUEZ VS. MC ELECTRONICS, LLC

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The Court is advised that on July 30, 2020, Judge David Brown granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The minute order of the same date indicates that the party-prepared proposed order was signed in open court. However, the signed order is not yet available for review in the Court's Register of Actions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANIEL ARAIZA V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, ET AL.

If preliminary approval is granted, the final approval hearing shall take place on December 4, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 1.

  • Hearing

PEDROZA VS. EL DORADO INN

Plaintiff Richard Pedroza's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: Attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,066,667. The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount in light of the quality of the result obtained, the quality of the work performed by class counsel, and a review of the billing records provided and the estimated lodestar.

  • Hearing

BARRAGAN VS. TAILGATE PRINTING INC.

Plaintiff Gabriela Barragan and Victoria Hernandez Ortega's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to September 4, 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 August 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

VELEZ VS. ENCORE INTERIORS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to September 18, 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 must submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

CHRISTENSEN VS. TRANSIT AIR CARGO, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Incentive Payment are granted, except that the court approves plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $58,333.33, and awards an enhancement to plaintiff Mary Ann Christensen only in the amount of $3,500.

  • Hearing

BARRAGAN VS. TAILGATE PRINTING INC.

Plaintiff Gabriela Barragan and Victoria Hernandez Ortega's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to September 4, 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 August 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

GUERRERO VS. ACCURATE BACKGROUND, INC.

Plaintiff Sharon Guerrero's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payment Plaintiff Sharon Guerrero’s motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as set forth below.

  • Hearing

GUERRERO VS. ACCURATE BACKGROUND, INC.

Plaintiff Sharon Guerrero's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payment Plaintiff Sharon Guerrero’s motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as set forth below.

  • Hearing

CHRISTENSEN VS. TRANSIT AIR CARGO, INC.

Unless plaintiff provides the court with the estimated low payment to the class members before the hearing, the tentative ruling will be to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Incentive Payment to September 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

BOL VS. SNOOZE HIC LLC

Plaintiff Melanie Bol's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Affirming PAGA Settlement The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to August 28, 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 August 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

BOL VS. SNOOZE HIC LLC

Plaintiff Melanie Bol's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Affirming PAGA Settlement The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to August 28, 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 August 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

PEDROZA VS. EL DORADO INN

Plaintiff Richard Pedroza's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: Attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,066,667. The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount in light of the quality of the result obtained, the quality of the work performed by class counsel, and a review of the billing records provided and the estimated lodestar.

  • Hearing

STEPHANIE ROJAS VS CONSTELLATION HOMEBUILDER SYSTEMS INC [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional class certification is GRANTED. Background This is a putative wage and hour class and representative action. According to the complaint, plaintiff worked in a sales position for defendants, which are a real estate marketing company and a real estate lead generation services software company. ROA # 18 ¶¶ 7-9.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERICA CORONA VS PROPERTY WEST INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. (ROA 215.) The final approval hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs and Plaintiffs' service awards is also scheduled for January 8, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. The court intends to sign the proposed order after confirmation of this tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KYRA GROVES ET AL VS MAPLEBEAR INC

The notice of substitution of counsel also indicated that he objects to the proposed class action settlement and would submit his objections thereto to the administrator pursuant to the procedures set forth in the proposed class action settlement, and he would also file it with the Court. On November 14, 2019, in the Groves Action, Blackham filed an objection to the class action settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RUBIO VS PURITY COSMETICS

The Court rules on plaintiff Carmen Rubio's (Plaintiff) motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of a Plaintiff Class 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

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BAKER VS SELECT COMFORT RETAIL CORPORATION [E-FILE]

If the Court overrules Intervenor's opposition, the Court is inclined to find that the terms and conditions of the proposed class action settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RUBIO VS PURITY COSMETICS

The Court rules on plaintiff Carmen Rubio's (Plaintiff) motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of a Plaintiff Class 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

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BOCHENEK VS M2 MEDIA GROUP LLC

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Etc. Bochenek v. M2 Media Group LLC, Case No. 2019-25568 July 31, 2020, 3:00 p.m., Dept. 72 (continued from June 19) 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a CLRA/unfair competition case alleging violation of the Automatic Renewal Law, B&P Code section 17600 et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELIZABETH MERRITT V. HOUZZ INC., ET AL.

The final approval hearing shall take place on October 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 1.

  • 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.