What is a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement?

After the Court has held a preliminary approval hearing, it may grant final approval of a class action settlement. (Rules of Ct. 3.769(a); Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.)

In order to grant final approval of a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245.) The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 245.)

“[A] presumption of fairness exists where:

  1. the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining;
  2. investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently;
  3. counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and
  4. the percentage of objectors is small.”

(Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)

The Court also considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

“The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case.” (Wershba v. Apple 18 Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 245.) The court must examine the “proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.” (Id.)

Before final approval of a class action settlement, notice must be given to the class. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.769(e), (f).)

Certification of the class and the awarded attorney fee must also be deemed proper. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 8 Cal.App.4th 1794.)

Useful Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Recent Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement TENTATIVE RULING DENY Final Approval. The Court has received and reviewed all moving papers and objections and rules as follows. The parties failed to obtain preliminary approval of the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement. Contrary to counsel’s contentions, the Court was neither clearly made aware, nor approved the Addendum.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

HAWKINS VS. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Representative Enhancements, and Settlement Administration Costs are granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $180,000, and approves plaintiffs’ enhancements only in the amounts of $4,000 for plaintiff Andrae Hawkins and $1,000 for plaintiff Patricia Chagalla.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

WILLIAMS VS. STAFF PRO, INC.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $1,384,997.59. The court concludes that a reasonable attorney fee in this case is 30% of the gross settlement amount minus the deduction for the employer’s share of payroll taxes, which the court does not consider to be part of the common fund on which plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees should be calculated.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

BAIRD VS. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. A Final Approval Hearing is set for February 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KAREN POWELL V. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Fairness Hearing; Motion Approval Final Approval for Class Action Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Karen Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Phillip R. Poliner, Neil B. Fineman, Fineman Poliner LLP For Defendant Claire’s Stores, Inc.: Matthew R.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

KAREN POWELL V. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Fairness Hearing; Motion Approval Final Approval for Class Action Settlement Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

GONZALEZ VS. ALLOY DIE CASTING CO.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative’s Service Award, and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted, except that the court approves plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $142,500.00, and approves plaintiff’s attorney costs only in the amount of $9,332.93. The court concludes that a reasonable attorney fee in this case is 30% of the gross settlement amount.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

NGUYEN VS. MICROVENTION, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Enhancement are granted, except that the court approves plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $319,200.00. The court concludes that a reasonable fee award in this case is 30% of the gross settlement amount, after deducting the amount of the employer’s share of payroll taxes that will come out of the gross settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

GONZALEZ VS. ALLOY DIE CASTING CO.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative’s Service Award, and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted, except that the court approves plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $142,500.00, and approves plaintiff’s attorney costs only in the amount of $9,332.93. The court concludes that a reasonable attorney fee in this case is 30% of the gross settlement amount.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ARANDA VS. TEKWORKS, INC.

Plaintiffs Fernando Aranda and Jose Paz's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to November 13, 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 November 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

CARDOSO VS. DATA CLEAN CORPORATION

Plaintiffs Geovany Cardoso, Calvin Johnson, Igor Pavelcik, Oswald Dominguez, Jessie Hernandez, Daniel Frank, and Erik Diaz's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the supplemental papers filed on September 16, 2020. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED with respect to versions of the settlement agreement, notice and opt-out form included in the notice of lodging at ROA 144.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BROCK VS. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION

The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED with respect to the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Settlement as amended (ROA 139, Ex. B). The font size on the notice sent to class members may not be smaller than the font size on the example presented to the Court for approval. The motion for final approval shall be heard on March 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

NGUYEN VS. MICROVENTION, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Enhancement are granted, except that the court approves plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $319,200.00. The court concludes that a reasonable fee award in this case is 30% of the gross settlement amount, after deducting the amount of the employer’s share of payroll taxes that will come out of the gross settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JONATHAN BASINGER VS. IL PALIO RESTAURANT GROUP LLC

The Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement brought by Plaintiff Jonathan Basinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the LWDA, is GRANTED. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court awards $6,400.00 for work performed by the Claims Administrator. The Court approves the settlement of the PAGA claim in the amount of $15,000, with $11,250 being paid to the LWDA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CLAY VS XIFIN INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. The notice and proposed order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement shall be amended such that a written objection is permissive, not mandatory. (Proposed Order ¶¶11, 15; Notice § IV (C).) A class member may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and orally object.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RANDOLPH VS AMAZON.COM LLC [E-FILE]

I. to reflect the filing date of the Third Amended Complaint, and with the Notice of Class Action Settlement attached as Exhibit 1, within 10 days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RANDOLPH VS AMAZON.COM LLC [E-FILE]

I. to reflect the filing date of the Third Amended Complaint, and with the Notice of Class Action Settlement attached as Exhibit 1, within 10 days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALVARO MONTOYA VS TRICAP INTERNATIONAL, LLC

BC644383 (“Williams”) or the Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement. (RJN, Exhs. A, B.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that on or about August 12 through August 14, 2019, he entered into a settlement agreement with Defendants to resolve this action (“Settlement Agreement”). The parties agreed that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. (Decl. of Nava ¶3, Exh. A (“Settlement Agreement”).) Here there was no issue that consideration was given.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOHN LAQUI VS HOLLINGSWORTH LOGISTICS GROUP

The Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement is granted. Parties are to submit a date for the final approval hearing, as well as the date to file the motion for final approval of the settlement. Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

JEROME WILLIAMS VS. RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS A UTAH CORPORATION

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is unopposed and is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THOMAS NORIEGA V. DAVID SPURR

The notice informs class members of their right to attend the final approval hearing as set by the Court or for their attorney to attend, as well as providing contact information for class counsel. The notice complies with California Rule of Court, rule 3.766(d). The parties have satisfied the procedural requirements for preliminary approval of a class action settlement other than lodging a proposed order, and the settlement amount appears fair and reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ARMENTA V. SEACA PACKAGING, INC.

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Tentative Ruling: To grant the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Explanation: 1. Class Certification a.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CRUZ VS. LAS MONTANAS

HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY FRANCISCA CRUZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. Counsel are requested to meet and confer as to an appropriate date for calendaring the final approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

KYRA GROVES ET AL VS MAPLEBEAR INC

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On August 28, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffs—on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated class members—filed a motion for an order for final approval of class action settlement and ordering that notice be issued to the settlement class.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALFARO VS. ORANGE AUTOMOTIVE

The Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Judgment entered on December 13, 2019 constituted a Judgment, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement and Judgment. Thus, this court sees no need for ongoing Status Conferences, but the court will grant this one continuance of the Final Report Hearing to see if the issue can be resolved in the next six months.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 101     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.