Excerpt: ...is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. On March 2, 2022, the Court issued a tentative ruling requesting further information in order to evaluate the settlement, and indicating it was disinclined to approve it unless the parties agreed to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). It continued the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to allow the...

Excerpt: ...reliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Defendant employed Plaintiffs and others as hourly‐paid or non‐ exempt employees in California. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to include incentive pay, including shift differentials, bonuses and commissions, in calculating employees' regular rates of pay. (Id., ¶ 27.) Lumentum failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and to provide required meal and r...

Excerpt: ...r filed on July 8, 2021. 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. The Court entered an order approving an Addendum to the settlement on November 1, 2021. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. On April 14, 2022, the Cou...

Excerpt: ...nopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a California corporate entity doing business in California by operating car washes. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a non‐exempt car wash supervisor in May 2013. (Id., ¶ 8.) His employment was terminated on June 6, 2020. (Ibid.) Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he earned additional non‐discretionary remuneration, i...

Excerpt: ...s, among other wage and hour violations. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. After reviewing the motion, the Court requested some changes, and informed the parties of the reasons why. In response, Plaintiffs made many of the requested changes. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion I. BACKGROUND A. Factual As alleged in the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Suref...

Excerpt: ...tual 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 her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] s...

Excerpt: ...e case in favor of Patton, et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:21‐CV‐01096‐WBS‐KJN) (the “Federal Action”), in which Mr. Patton and other plaintiffs assert direct individual and putative class claims under the Labor Code for the same violations at issue here. Plaintiff opposes Home Depot's motion. As discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to stay. I. LEGAL STANDARD A court ordinarily has inherent power, in i...

Excerpt: ... 6045], cert. granted Dec. 15, 2021, No. 20‐1573, ___U.S.___ [142 S.Ct. 734, 211 L.Ed.2d 421] (“Viking River Cruises”); (2) Adecco's motion for leave to file an amended answer; (3) Plaintiff's motion to compel Adecco's responses to special interrogatory (“SI”) set nos. 3 and 4; and (4) Plaintiff's motion to compel Adecco's responses to request for production (“RFP”) set no. 2. As discussed below, the Court DENIES Adecco's motion to ...

Excerpt: ...low, the Court DENIES Julie's motion. I. BACKGROUND3 A. Pavlina I According to the Complaint in Case No. 17CV310026 (“Complaint”), PAV JAM, LLC (“PAV JAM”) is the general partner of limited partnerships JAM Limited Partnership; S V JAM, L.P.; CCPO A, L.P.; CCPO BC, L.P.; and K. M. Pavlina L.P. (collectively, “Limited Partnerships”). (See Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 19.) The lone members of PAV JAM are Julie and Stephen, who each hold a 50% own...

Excerpt: ...Circuit Opinion”). Before the Court is (1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and (2) Walmart's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both motions are opposed. As discussed below, the Court DENIES both motions. I. BACKGROUND10 A. Trial Court Proceedings Plaintiff filed this action on December 2, 2016, alleging individual, putative class, and PAGA claims based on the following theories: Walmart violated Labor Code section ...

Excerpt: ...ground checks, and committed other wage and hour violations. The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on January 10, 2022. 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 serv...

Excerpt: ...r filed on July 8, 2021. 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. The Court entered an order approving an Addendum to the settlement on November 1, 2021. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Co...

Excerpt: ...for production of documents propounded to Defendant Regional Medical Center (“Defendant”). I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS Defendant urges this court to deny the motion on the ground that Plaintiff's separate statement fails to comply with the rules of court. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to include the text of the special interrogatories and responses in the separate statement for special interrogatories 14, 16, and 19, to wh...

Excerpt: ... the Court are Plaintiff's motions (1) for final approval of the settlement and (2) for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS both motions. I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether...

Excerpt: ...��s), nos. 10–21, 23–25, 27, and 29. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with both motions, and Defendant opposes both the motions and the requests for sanctions. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motions and awards monetary sanctions in a reduced amount. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A party propounding a request for production may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance is ...

Excerpt: ...n's cofounders, Cross‐ Defendants Lily Chao and Damien Ding, repeatedly lied to him about a range of subjects, including Temujin's technology and even their own identities. Ms. Chao, Mr. Ding, and Cross‐Defendant Temujin Labs Inc., a Cayman Islands corporation, (“Temujin Cayman,” collectively with Ms. Chao and Mr. Ding, “CrossDefendants”) move to quash Mr. Fu's attempted service of each of them. Mr. Fu opposes their motion, urging val...

Excerpt: ...CPA”); and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code sections 1788–1788.33 (“RFDCPA”). Before the Court is a motion to quash service of the operative First Amended Class Action Cross‐Complaint (“FAXC”) by CCS's Australian parent company, Cross‐Defendant Credit Corp Group Limited (“CCGL”). As discussed below, the Court GRANTS CCGL's motion to quash. I. BACKGROUND CCS filed this action on...

Excerpt: ...on. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court requires further information to evaluate the settlement, and CONTINUES the hearing on this matter accordingly. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Norton, formerly known as Symantec, is a global provider of security, storage, and systems management solutions that help organizations and consumers secure and manage their d...

Excerpt: ...nopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as gymnastics coaches: Plaintiff Anthony Huizar from October 2017 to January 2020 and Plaintiff Paola E. Navarro from 2015 to July 2021. (Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ¶¶ 8–9.) Both were classified as non‐exempt. (Id., ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages due to its rounding policy...

Excerpt: ...e complaint. Plaintiff opposes both motions. As discussed below, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer and DENIES the motion to strike. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that when he applied for employment with Defendants, they provided a disclosure and authorization form to perform a background investigation. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) But the disclosure contained extraneous and superfluous language beyond the disclosure itself and/or was not clear and conspi...

Excerpt: ...uash service of summons by publication, which Plaintiffs oppose. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Mr. Gettings's motion. I. BACKGROUND2 Mr. Gettings filed his first motion to quash service of summons on April 7, 2021, challenging Plaintiffs' attempt to serve him at Palantir's business address because he had not worked for Palantir since 2015. In support of that motion, he filed a declaration stating that he had “resided outside of the State...

Excerpt: ...is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court requires further information to evaluate the settlement, and is disinclined to approve it unless the parties agree to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non‐exempt employee from Ap...

Excerpt: ...hour violations. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Defendant operates and provides a global Data Center and IT Infrastructure Management software. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶ 2.) It employed Plaintiffs and others as non‐exempt employees in California. (Id., ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs allege th...

Excerpt: ...actual 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 her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] ...

Excerpt: ...d (2) to stay this action and a related action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) pending arbitration. Plaintiff opposes both motions. As explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of this case and stay this action pending arbitration, but DENIES its motion to stay the related PAGA action. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in a non‐exempt capacity from May 17, 2017 to March 1, 2021. (C...