On October 15, 2019 a
Tentative Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brianna Flores,
Estremera, Tania,
Hansen, Dexter Norman,
and
Biscomerica Corp., A California Corporation,
Does 1-100,
for Employment - Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Tentative Rulings for April 29, 2022
Department 8-26
Judge David Cohn
on the court's website
Tentative Rulings for Department S-26 are posted
(https://www.sb-court.orq/divisions/civil/civil—tentative—rulinls) at 3:00 p.m. or at 7:00
hearing. no tentative ruling isposted at 3:00 p.m.,
p.m. the court day before the If
please check again after 7:00 p.m.
submit on a tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing
If you do not wish to
CourtCaII (888-882-6878 0r www.courtcall.com). Failure to
either in person or via
appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. Ifall parties submit on a tentative ruling,
the tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court at the hearing. The tentative
on which the court requests the parties to provide
ruling may note particular issues
hearing. If so directed, attendance at the hearing is mandatory,
further argument at the
either in person or via CourtCaIl.
motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the
The party prevailing on a
court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling.
15-16. Flores, Estremera, Hansen v. Biscomerica Corp.
CIVDS-1930814
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Tentative Ruling:
Grant and schedule hearing for final approval.
Timeliness:
Motions for final approval of class action settlements and motions for approval of
on statutory time. But if all parties agree to shortened
PAGA settlements must be filed
approval, there is no reason not to grant the request if
time for a motion for preliminaly
given sufficient time to analyze the motion. The court has had sufficient
the court is
by the shortened time, because the putative class members
time. No one is prejudiced
object or to seek to intervene before the motion for final
will have a full opportunity to
court. As for the PAGA settlement, it willnot be ruled upon
approval is heard by the
approval of the class settlement, aggrieved employees do not
until the hearing on final
have a property interest in the PAGA settlement, and the LWDA will have an opportunity
The request to permit the filing on April 21 for the April 29
to object at that hearing.
hearing is therefore granted.
Page 1 of 2
CV526042922
The Motion:
The PAGA group must be redefined. Itcannot be all class members who worked
during the PAGA period, because individuals who opt out of the class (and therefore are
not class members) still participate in the PAGA settlement ifthey worked during the
PAGA period. One cannot opt out of the PAGA settlement. (See motion 2210-1 1.)
Counsel should provide the court with the following information: (1) the
estimated aggregate number of work-weeks for all class members; (2) the estimated
number of aggrieved employees; and (3) the estimated aggregate number of pay-
periods or work-weeks for all aggrieved employees during the PAGA period.
Subject to redefinition of the PAGA group and provision of the additional
information, the motion is granted.
Page 2 of 2
CVSZ6042922
Document Filed Date
April 29, 2022
Case Filing Date
October 15, 2019
Category
Employment - Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.