On April 18, 2017 a
Judgment
was filed
involving a dispute between
Moniz, Rachel,
and
Adecco Usa, Inc.,
Does 1 To 50, Inclusive,
Does 1 To 9,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977)
1 David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409)
Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872)
2 SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, California 94608
4 Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
5 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
6 sgordon@schneiderwallace.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Moniz
and the State of California
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12
RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736
13 California and aggrieved employees,
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
14 Plaintiff,
15 vs. Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
16
ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
17 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017
Defendants. Trial Date: None Set
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 _________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. - Case No. 17CIV01736
1 Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant
2 to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion”) on December
3 28, 2022. Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion came on for hearing on January 31, 2023 in
4 Department 2 of this Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.
5 (“Defendant”) did not oppose Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion, but non-party Paola Correa
6 (“Correa”) did oppose Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion. The Court granted Plaintiff’s
7 Settlement approval motion over the opposition of Correa, as set forth in the Court’s Order #2
8 Approving PAGA Settlement, entered by this Court on February 10, 2023. The Court’s Order #2
9 Approving PAGA Settlement stated, inter alia, that “Judgment will not be entered until after the fee
10 determination.”
11 Correa and her counsel filed a Motion by Paola Correa and Her Attorneys for Fees and an
12 Enhancement/Service Award (“Correa’s fee motion”) on March 1, 2023. Correa’s fee motion came
13 on for hearing April 25, 2023 in Department 2 of this Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner
14 presiding. Plaintiff and Defendant each opposed Correa’s fee motion. The Court granted in part and
15 denied in part Correa’s fee motion and awarded attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel and Correa’s
16 counsel, as set forth in the Court’s Order Re: Attorneys’ Fees from PAGA Settlement, entered by
17 this Court on June 23, 2023.
18 The Court has approved the Settlement Agreement and made its fee determination, and
19 accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES THAT judgment shall
20 be and hereby is entered in the above-captioned action on the terms set forth in the Court’s Order #2
21 Approving PAGA Settlement and the Court’s Order Re: Attorneys’ Fees from PAGA Settlement,
22 which are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.
24
25
Dated: ______________________ _____________________________________
26 HON. MARIE S. WEINER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
27
28 _________________________________________________________________________________
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. - Case No. 17CIV01736
Document Filed Date
June 30, 2023
Case Filing Date
April 18, 2017
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) 1 David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872) 2 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 4 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 5 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com 6 sgordon@schneiderwallace.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Moniz and the State of California 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736 13 California and aggrieved employees, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 16 ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________ [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. - Case No. 17CIV01736 1 Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant 2 to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion”) on December 3 28, 2022. Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion came on for hearing on January 31, 2023 in 4 Department 2 of this Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. 5 (“Defendant”) did not oppose Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion, but non-party Paola Correa 6 (“Correa”) did oppose Plaintiff’s Settlement approval motion. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 7 Settlement approval motion over the opposition of Correa, as set forth in the Court’s Order #2 8 Approving PAGA Settlement, entered by this Court on February 10, 2023. The Court’s Order #2 9 Approving PAGA Settlement stated, inter alia, that “Judgment will not be entered until after the fee 10 determination.” 11 Correa and her counsel filed a Motion by Paola Correa and Her Attorneys for Fees and an 12 Enhancement/Service Award (“Correa’s fee motion”) on March 1, 2023. Correa’s fee motion came 13 on for hearing April 25, 2023 in Department 2 of this Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner 14 presiding. Plaintiff and Defendant each opposed Correa’s fee motion. The Court granted in part and 15 denied in part Correa’s fee motion and awarded attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel and Correa’s 16 counsel, as set forth in the Court’s Order Re: Attorneys’ Fees from PAGA Settlement, entered by 17 this Court on June 23, 2023. 18 The Court has approved the Settlement Agreement and made its fee determination, and 19 accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES THAT judgment shall 20 be and hereby is entered in the above-captioned action on the terms set forth in the Court’s Order #2 21 Approving PAGA Settlement and the Court’s Order Re: Attorneys’ Fees from PAGA Settlement, 22 which are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. 24 25 Dated: ______________________ _____________________________________ 26 HON. MARIE S. WEINER JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________ 1 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. - Case No. 17CIV01736