Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement pf Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Claims The hearing on the parties’ joint motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to January 17, 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 December 31, 2019. If a revised settlement agreement and/or proposed notice is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well. As to the Settlement: 1.
Exhibit 1 to the Spivak Declaration is supposed to be Plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA. Exhibit 1 as filed is the original complaint in this matter. Please provide a copy of Plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA so the Court may evaluate compliance with pre-filing requirements for PAGA claims. 2.
The “Eligible Employees” under the settlement are defined as all non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant. This appears much broader than the putative cla
Hearing Date
November 22, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement pf Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Claims The hearing on the parties’ joint motion for approval of PAGA settlement is CONTINUED to January 17, 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 December 31, 2019. If a revised settlement agreement and/or proposed notice is submitted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well. As to the Settlement: 1.
Exhibit 1 to the Spivak Declaration is supposed to be Plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA. Exhibit 1 as filed is the original complaint in this matter. Please provide a copy of Plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA so the Court may evaluate compliance with pre-filing requirements for PAGA claims. 2.
The “Eligible Employees” under the settlement are defined as all non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant. This appears much broader than the putative cla