This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendant Quik Stop Markets, Inc., alleging wage statement violations. The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on July 24, 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 plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. Plaintiff’s 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. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235,
Hearing Date
October 29, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
This is a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action on behalf of employees of defendant Quik Stop Markets, Inc., alleging wage statement violations. The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on July 24, 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 plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. Plaintiff’s 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. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235,