This is a class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action arising from allegations that defendant Laptalo Enterprises, Inc. dba JL Precision imposed illegal time rounding and break policies on its employees. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on June 19, 2020. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed.
I. Legal Standards for Approving a Class Action/PAGA 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. Appl
Hearing Date
October 01, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
This is a class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action arising from allegations that defendant Laptalo Enterprises, Inc. dba JL Precision imposed illegal time rounding and break policies on its employees. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on June 19, 2020. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court’s analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order.
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed.
I. Legal Standards for Approving a Class Action/PAGA 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. Appl