Dept. CX101

Procedural guidelines for several types of motions and dismissals handled regularly in this department are set forth here. The guidelines appear after the Tentative Rulings.

 

 

TENTATIVE RULINGS

 

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

 

 

September 30, 2022

 

Appearances in non-evidentiary matters will now be conducted via Zoom.

On the date of the hearing, log into ZOOM through the following link and follow the prompts:

 

The Superior Court of California - County of Orange

Parties preferring to be heard in person, instead of remotely, should provide notice of their intent to appear in person to the court and to all other parties at least five days before the hearing.

If any party wants a record of the proceedings, that party must arrange to have a court reporter do so remotely via Zoom. Please see further information concerning court reporters below. If any party requests a transcript of the proceedings, the court reporter must send the transcript to the court as an attachment to an email attachment to CX101@occourts.org.  

The courts are now open to the public who may attend any hearing in person.

 

 

OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DEPARTMENT

 

HEARING DATES/RESERVATIONS: Except for Summary Judgment and Adjudication Motions, no reservations are required for Law and Motion matters. Call the Clerk to reserve a date for a Summary Judgment or Adjudication Motion. Regarding all other motions, the parties are to include a hearing date (Friday at 1:30PM) in their motion papers. The date initially assigned might later be continued by the Court if the assigned date becomes unavailable for reasons related to, among other things, calendar congestion.

 

 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIPTS: Court reporters are not available in this department for any proceedings. Please consult the Court’s website concerning arrangements for court reporters. If a transcript of the proceedings is ordered by any party, that party must ensure that the Court receives an electronic copy by email as mentioned above. Under prevailing circumstances caused by Covid-19, court reporters must record proceedings remotely. See above.

SUBMISSION ON THE TENTATIVE

If a tentative ruling is posted and ALL counsel intend to submit on the tentative without oral argument, please advise the clerk by emailing her as soon as possible. The email should be directed to CX101@occourts.org. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the court, the tentative ruling shall become the court’s final ruling and the prevailing party shall give Notice of Ruling. If there is no submission or appearance by either party, the court will determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or will become the final ruling.

ORDERS

The court’s minute order will constitute the order of the court and no further proposed orders must be submitted to the court unless the court or the law specifically requires otherwise. Where an order is specifically required by the court or by law, the parties are required to do so in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(c) (1) and (2).

 

BOOKMARKS

Bookmarking of exhibits to motions and supporting declarations - The court requires strict compliance with CRC, rule 3.1110 (f) (4) which requires electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks with the links to the first page of each exhibit, and with bookmarked titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit. CRC, rule 3.1110 (f) (4).

The court may continue a motion that does not comply with rule 3.1110 (f) (4) and require the parties to comply with that rule before resetting the hearing.

 

 

SEPTEMBER 30

 

1	Barrera vs. Income Estates, L.L.C. 2020-01150201	Status Conference re: Application for Default Judgment  The hearing on this matter is continued to Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 1:30 PM in Department CX 101 at 1:30 PM via Zoom.
2	La Combe vs. Nordstrom Card Services, Inc. 2021-01195661	Status Conference Per the parties' request, this matter has been continued to November 18, 2022.
3	Ramirez vs. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC 2019-01059499	Final Accounting   As all distribution efforts are fully concluded, the final report is approved, and the Court’s file closed.    No appearance is required on September 30, 2022. Plaintiff to give notice.
4	Wood Gutmann & Bogart Insurance Brokers vs. Chinn 2017-00911730	Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice VACATED per telephonic request of Moving Party.
5	Lewis vs. Salus Healthcare, LLC, a California limited liability company; 2021-01213154	1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Status Conference Per the parties' request, the Motion to Compel Arbitration has been VACATED. The Status Conference has been continued to January 12, 2023.
6	ODG Sweegen LLC vs. Chen 2020-01140383	Motion for Final Approval of Settlement of Derivative Action   Per the parties' request, this matter has been continued to November 4, 2022.
7	Rovira vs. Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. 2020-01136565	1. Motion for Approval of Class Settlement 2. Status Conference This is a putative class and PAGA action involving alleged wage/hour violations. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint. Before the Court this day is a continued hearing on Plaintiff’s application for preliminary approval of the settlement reached in this action. The parties propose a Gross Settlement Amount of $750,000, with the following maximum deductions: - Attorney Fees: $250,000 - Litigation Costs: $25,000 - Administration Costs: $16,400 - Plaintiffs’ Enhancement: $12,500 ($7,500 [Rovira]; $2,500 each [Renteria, Santos]) - LWDA: $37,500 ($50,000 total PAGA penalties, 75% to LWDA) Based on the review of the settlement and supplemental materials, the motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED, subject to the filing of proof of service, within five calendar days, reflecting submission of the amended settlement agreement to the LWDA. The court will thereafter sign a revised Proposed Order, including the still missing references to the ROA number of the declaration to which the Amended Settlement is attached. For final approval as to the proposed enhancement, counsel should state the amount the representatives are expected to recover as class members, and any other factors pertinent to the enhancement request. (Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251.) The actual high, low, and average recoveries for the class members and should also be stated. At the final hearing, evidence of fees and costs should be presented in the form of a summary of time spent on the substantive tasks to enable the Court to evaluate the lodestar and the costs claimed. Counsel should also state whether time records were kept and created contemporaneously or otherwise. The Final Approval hearing is set for January 6, 2023 in Dept. CX101. All papers are due no later than 15 calendar days prior to the hearing. The status conference is vacated. Moving party to give notice.
8	Silva vs. Premier Chevrolet of Buena Park, LLC 2021-01218096	1. Motion for PAGA Approval 2. Status Conference     Having reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement, the proposed Notice and the accompanying papers, the Court has the following concerns: 1.    Counsel must address the Miller v. Premier Automotive of Seaside, LLC case that is pending in Monterey Superior Court. What relationship do the claims in Miller, have to the claims in this case? What stage of the litigation is that case in? 2.    Please provide the estimated maximum value of the claims being settled, as well as how much the claims were discounted for settlement purposes and the bases therefore. 3.    Please provide a rough breakdown of attorney hours spent on the various categories of activities that comprise the lodestar. Copies of billing records are not necessary. 4.    The court has significant concerns with the proposal to have Defendants administer the settlement rather than a third party administrator. This is concerning given that the substantial number of aggrieved employees (over 1,100). Further, the language of Par. 62 which potentially alleviates Defendants from all liability for issues with sending the Individual Settlement Payments is problematic. The court is inclined to require the use of a third party administrator. 5.    The court is not aware that the Department of Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wages Fund is accepting unclaimed PAGA settlement funds. The court suggests that the uncashed checks instead be transmitted to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund. 6.    Paragraph 55 of the Agreement allows for modification of the Agreement based on a writing signed by the Parties. Court approval is required for modifications to the Agreement. 7.    The following need to be addressed in the Proposed Judgment so that the allegedly aggrieved employees have a fuller understanding of the essential terms and consequences of the settlement: a.    The Settlement Agreement needs to be referenced in the Judgment by the ROA number of the declaration to which it is attached. b.    A copy of the Notice must be attached to the Judgment as Exhibit 1. c.    A proposed date for the final accounting hearing must be included in the Proposed Judgment. d.    The Judgment needs to instruct the Plaintiff to submit a copy of the Judgment to the LWDA within ten calendar days after entry of the Judgment. e.    The Judgment needs to indicate that the court will retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6. The hearing on this Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and the Status Conference are continued to January 13, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.  It is not necessary for the parties to resubmit briefing which has already been filed with the Court. Supplemental declarations or other supplemental materials addressing the identified issues shall be filed no later than 14 calendar days prior to the continued hearing date.  If a revised settlement agreement is submitted, ­­a redlined version showing all changes, deletions, and additions must also be submitted electronically to the court.  January 13, 2023 is the earliest date available for a hearing of this type.   The court does not require any physical or remote appearance at the hearing scheduled for September 30, 2022. If the parties need to address the court, they may do so on Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 1:30 PM in Department CX 101 via Zoom. January 13, 2023 is the earliest date available for a hearing of this type.
9	REVELO vs. BASF CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation 2021-01195744	1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement 2. Status Conference (Continued)   The court thanks the parties for the comprehensive papers filed in support of this motion. There are, however, certain minor issues that need to be addressed including the fact that the proposed order contains unnecessary language that must be deleted.  The hearing on this motion and the Status Conference are continued to October 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101 so that plaintiff may address the issues identified below. It is not necessary for plaintiff to resubmit briefing which has already been filed with the court. Supplemental declarations or other supplemental materials shall be filed no later than 5 court days prior to the hearing.  1.     The court notes that it is unlikely to award an enhancement of $7,500. The court will likely reduce the award to $5,000. 2.            The exclusion form needs to indicate that the individual cannot opt out of the PAGA settlement and that he/she will still be bound by the PAGA release and receive a PAGA payment. 3.            The declaration(s) filed in support of the motion must inform the court as to whether the parties, after making reasonable inquiry, are aware of any class, representative or other collective action in any other court that asserts claims similar to those asserted in the action being settled. (CX101 Preliminary Approval Guideline 13). While counsel has indicated that there are no pending PAGA actions, he has not addressed other representative actions. 4.            While attorney Winston confirms that neither he nor his client has any interest and/or involvement with the proposed cy pres recipient, counsel must also address whether Defendant or its counsel has any interest in the proposed cy pres beneficiary. 5.            The Proposed Order contains language unnecessary to the primary purposes of such an order namely, to make findings supporting approval, effectuate the settlement and give satisfactory notice to the allegedly aggrieved employees. Please modify the order to simplify it such a way as to achieve these purposes. Once a revised order has been submitted, the court will make any non-substantive changes required for approval, and the court will set a Final Approval hearing for January 20, 2023. If the revised papers are satisfactory, the court will sign the Order (with any necessary, minor non-substantive changes)  and vacate the October 14, 2022 hearing. The court does not require any physical or remote appearance at the hearing scheduled for 9/30/22.   Plaintiff to give notice.
10	Embee Inc vs. Safeco Insurance Company of America 2012-00586683	1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Status Conference   Continued per September 27 minute order to October 7, 2022.
11	Children's Dental Group Cases JCCP 4917	Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication VACATED per September 22 minute order.
12	Otay Real Estate Cases JCCP 5140	1. Joinder (Cont. from 9/9/22) 2. Motion to Seal 3. Motion to Seal 4. Motion  re R&R dated 3/2/22 5. Motion  re R&R dated 3/31/22 6. Informal Discovery Conference   Continued as per clerk’s communications to parties.

 

 

 

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

 

Procedural Guideline for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements

Parties submitting class action settlements for preliminary approval should be certain that the following procedures are followed and that all of the following issues are addressed. Failure to do so may result in unnecessary delay of approval. It is also strongly suggested that these guidelines be considered during settlement negotiations and the drafting of settlement agreements. 

1) NOTICED MOTION - Pursuant to California Rule of Court ("CRC") 3.769(c), preliminary approval of a class action settlement must be obtained by way of regularly noticed motion. 

2) CLAIMS MADE VS. CHECKS-MAILED SETTLEMENT/CY PRES – The court typically finds that settlement distribution procedures that do not require the submission of claim forms, but rather provide for settlement checks to be automatically mailed to qualified recipients, result in greater benefit to the members of most settlement classes. If a claims-made procedure is proposed, the settling parties must be prepared to explain why that form is superior to a checks-mailed approach. If the settlement results in “unpaid residue or unclaimed or abandoned class member funds,” the agreement must comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 384.  

3) REASONABLENESS OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNT – Admissible evidence, typically in the form of declaration(s) of plaintiffs’ counsel, must be presented to address the potential value of each claim that is being settled, as well the value of other forms of relief, such as interest, penalties and injunctive relief. Counsel must break out the potential recovery by claims, injuries, and recoverable costs and attorneys' fees so the court can discern the potential cash value of the claims and how much the case was discounted for settlement purposes. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116.) Where the operative complaint seeks injunctive relief, the value of prospective injunctive relief, if any, should be included in the Kullar analysis. The court generally requires that this analysis be fully developed and supported at the preliminary approval stage. The analysis must state the number of anticipated class members (broken down by subclasses if applicable), and the final approval hearing papers must similarly state the number of class members (again by subclass, if applicable). 

This analysis must also include a description of the expected low, average, and high payments to class members, and the expected amount to be received by the Plaintiff(s) (excluding any enhancement award).

4) ALLOCATION – In employment cases, if the settlement payments are divided between taxable and non-taxable amounts, a rationale should be provided consistent with counsel's Kullar analysis. The agreement and notice should clearly indicate whether there will be withholdings from the distribution checks, and who is paying the employer’s share of any payroll tax. The court is unlikely to approve imposing the employer’s share of payroll taxes on class members. If the operative complaint and the settlement include penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), proof of submission to the LWDA must be provided. (Labor Code §2999(l)(1).)

5) RELEASE - The release should be fairly tailored to the claims that were or could be asserted in the lawsuit based upon the facts alleged in the complaint. Releases that are overbroad will not be approved. Furthermore, while the court has no problem, conceptually, with the waiver by the named Plaintiff of the protection of Civil Code §1542, a 1542 waiver by the absent class members is generally inappropriate in the class settlement context. A comprehensive description of released claims as those arising out of or reasonably related to the allegations of the operative complaint generally provides an adequate level of protection against future claims. A 1542 waiver, which by its own terms is not necessarily circumscribed by any definition of "Released Claims," goes too far.

Also, although the court will not necessarily withhold approval on this basis, it generally considers a plain language summary of the release to be better than a verbatim rendition in the proposed class notice. 

6) SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION - The proposed Settlement Administrator must be identified, including basic information regarding its level of experience. Where calculation of an individual’s award is subject to possible dispute, a dispute resolution process should be specified. The court will not approve the amount of the costs award to the Settlement Administrator until the final approval hearing, at which time admissible evidence to support the request must be provided. The court also generally prefers to see a settlement term that funds allocated but not paid to the Settlement Administrator will be distributed to the class pro rata. 

The settlement should typically provide that the settlement administrator will conduct a skip trace not only on returned mail, but also on returned checks. 

7) NOTICE PROCEDURE - The procedure of notice by first-class mail followed by re-sending any returned mail after a skip trace is usually acceptable.  A 60-day notice period is usually adequate.    

8) NOTICE CONTENT - The court understands that there can be a trade-off between precise and comprehensive disclosures and easily understandable disclosures and is willing to err on the side of making the disclosures understandable. By way of illustration, parties should either follow, or at least become familiar with the formatting and content of The Federal Judicial Center's "Illustrative" Forms of Class Action Notices at http://www.fjc.gov/, which conveys important information to class members in a manner that complies with the standards in the S.E.C.'s plain English rules.  (17 C.F.R. § 230.421.)

Notices should always provide: (1) contact information for class counsel to answer questions; (2) an URL to a web site, maintained by the claims administrator or plaintiffs' counsel, that has links to the notice and the most important documents in the case; and (3) the URL for the court for persons who wish to review the court's docket in the case.

The motion should address whether translation(s) of the Notice and all attachments thereto should be provided to class members.

9) CLAIM FORM - If a claim form is used, it should not repeat voluminous information from the notice, such as the entire release. It should only contain that which is necessary to elicit the information necessary to administer the settlement.   

10) EXCLUSION AND OBJECTION- The court prefers that the Notice be accompanied by a Form to be completed by the class member seeking to be excluded, and a separate Form to be completed by the class member wishing to object.

The notice need only instruct class members who wish to exclude themselves to send a letter to the settlement administrator setting forth their name and a statement that they request exclusion from the class and do not wish to participate in the settlement. It should not include or solicit extraneous information not needed to effect an exclusion.  The same applies to the contents of the Form, if used.

Objections should also be sent to the settlement administrator (not filed with the court nor served on counsel). Thereafter counsel should file a single packet of all objections with the court. The court will not approve blanket statements that objections will be waived or not considered if not timely or otherwise compliant—rather, any such statements must be preceded by a statement that “Absent good cause found by the court….”

11) INCENTIVE AWARDS - The court will not decide the amount of any incentive award until final approval hearing, at which time evidence regarding the nature of the plaintiff's participation in the action, including specifics of actions taken, time committed and risks faced, if any, must be presented.  (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.)  

12) ATTORNEY FEES - The court will not approve the amount of attorneys' fees until final approval hearing, at which time sufficient evidence must be presented for a lodestar analysis. Parties are reminded that the court will not award attorneys’ fees without reviewing information about counsel's hourly rate and the time spent on the case, even if the parties have agreed to the fees. (Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 480, 573-575.)  Further information regarding fee approval is set forth in the court's Procedural Guidelines for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements.

At the final approval hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must disclose whether they have any fee-splitting arrangement with any other counsel or confirm none exists.  (Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 172, 184; California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(b).) 

 13) CONCURRENT PENDING CASES – The declaration(s) filed in support of the motion must inform the court as to whether the parties, after making reasonable inquiry, are aware of any class, representative or other collective action in any other court that asserts claims similar to those asserted in the action being settled. If any such actions are known to exist, the declaration shall also state the name and case number of any such case and the procedural status of that case. (Trotsky vs. Los Angeles Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 134, 148; Effect of failure to inform court of another pending case on same or similar issues.)

14) PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL – All proposed orders should include adequate information to provide clear instructions to the settlement administrator. The proposed order should also attach the proposed notice and any associated forms as exhibits. The proposed order must contain proposed dates for all future events contemplated therein. The settlement agreement should not be attached to the order. Instead, it should be identified by reference to the Register of Action (ROA) number of the declaration to which it is attached. See below.

The Proposed Order must identify the documents comprising the Settlement Agreement (both the Original Settlement Agreement and any Amendments thereto) by reference to the ROA number(s) of the declaration(s) to which they are attached. This facilitates the identification of the settlement agreement (and any amendments) approved by the court. Referencing the ROA number(s) is less cumbersome than attaching the Settlement Agreement/Amendments as exhibit(s) to the Proposed Order.

 

 

B.

 

 

Procedural Guideline for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements

1) Parties submitting class action settlements for final approval should be certain that the following procedures are followed, and that all of the following issues are addressed. Failure to do so may result in unnecessary delay of final approval.

Since the date and place of final approval hearings are set by the preliminary approval order, notice of which is typically included in the notice to class members of the settlement itself (California Rules of Court [“CRC”] 3.769(c) & (f)), the final approval hearing is outside the scope of Code of Civil Procedure §1005. Nevertheless, settling parties should caption their papers submitted in support of final approval as a “Motion for Final Approval,” and set the matter for hearing on the reserved date.

2) With rare exceptions, the court will expect all issues related to final approval to be heard at the same time, including, without limitation, (a) final approval of the settlement itself, (b) approval of any attorney’s fees request, (c) approval of incentive awards to class representatives, and (d) approval of expense reimbursements and costs of administration. If the settling parties elect to file separate motions for any of these categories, the motions must be set on the same day.

3) All requests for approval of attorney’s fees awards, whether included in a Motion for Final Approval or made by way of a separate motion, must include lodestar information, even if the requested amount is based on a percentage of the settlement fund. The court generally finds the declarations of class counsel as to hours spent on various categories of activities related to the action, together with hourly billing-rate information, to be sufficient, provided it is adequately detailed. It is generally not necessary to submit copies of billing records themselves with the moving papers, but counsel should be prepared to submit such records at the court’s request.

 
 

Plaintiff’s counsel must disclose whether they have any fee-splitting arrangement with any other counsel or confirm none exists.  (Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 172, 184; California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(b).)

4) Requests for approval of enhancement/incentive payments to class representatives must include evidentiary support consistent with the parameters outlined in Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.

 

5) For all settlements that include a distribution to settlement class members, a final compliance/accounting hearing must be set, which requires the submission and approval of a final status report after completion of the distribution process. The final accounting hearing will be set when final approval is granted, so the moving papers should include a suggested range of dates for this purpose. The compliance status report must be filed at least 10 calendar days prior to the compliance hearing.

 

6) In light of the requirements of CRC 3.769(h), all final approvals must result in the entry of judgment, and the words “dismissal” and “dismissed” should be avoided not only in proposed orders and judgments, but also in settlement agreements.

 

7) To ensure appropriate handling by the court clerk, the court prefers the use of a combined “order and judgment,” clearly captioned as such (e.g. “Order of Final Approval and Judgment” or “Order and Judgment of Final Approval”). The body of the proposed order and judgment must also incorporate the appropriate “judgment is hereby entered” language, and otherwise fully comply with California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 3.769(h), including express reference to that rule as the authority for the court’s continuing jurisdiction. The proposed order and judgment should also include the compliance hearing provision (with suggested date and time) discussed above.

 

8) If the actions that are being settled are included in a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (“JCCP”), termination of each included action by entry of judgment is subject to CRC 3.545(b) & (c), and proposed orders and judgments must so reflect. Language must also be included to the effect that compliance with CRC 3.545(b)(1 & 2) shall be undertaken by class counsel, and that a declaration shall be filed confirming such compliance.

 

9) All proposed orders and judgments should include all the requisite “recital,” “finding,” “order” and “judgment” language in a manner that clarifies the distinctions between these elements, and care must be taken that all terms that require definition are either defined in the proposed order and judgment itself or that definitions found elsewhere in the record are clearly incorporated by reference. No proposed order and judgment should be submitted until after review by counsel for each settling party.

C.1

 

Guidelines for PAGA Dismissals

 

(Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698 et seq.)

 

 

In light of the similarity of a representative PAGA claim to a class action, and the requirements of Labor Code § 2699 (l) (2) which requires court approval of PAGA settlements, when a plaintiff wishes to dismiss a PAGA claim, the court requires plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney to file a declaration containing information similar to that required under CRC, rule 3.770 (pertaining to class actions). In that declaration the declarant shall explain to the court why plaintiff wishes to dismiss the PAGA action, whether consideration was given for the dismissal, and if so, the nature and amount of the consideration given. The declaration shall be accompanied by a Proposed Order to Dismiss the PAGA claim.

 If the dismissal arises out of settlement with the individual plaintiff, a copy of that settlement agreement must be provided to the court. If the parties have agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, it must be provided to the court for in camera review. It should be submitted to the clerk by emailing it to CX101@occourts.org.

 

C.2

 

Guidelines for PAGA Settlements

 

 

 

Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(1)(2): “The superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.”

 

While the court will review every such motion for approval on its own merits, the court requires that at a minimum the settlement and/or any order or judgment requested from the court in connection with it must contain at least the following. 

A comprehensive definition of the group of allegedly aggrieved employees represented by

plaintiff in the action.

1.    A definition of the PAGA claims encompassed by the settlement, premised on the allegations of the operative complaint.

2.    The total consideration being provided by defendant for the settlement (“gross settlement amount”), and a description of each allocation of the consideration, such that all the total consideration is accounted for.  This description must include:

a.    A description of all consideration being received by plaintiff, including for plaintiff's individual claims, PAGA claims, attorney’s fees and costs.

b.    A description of all consideration being received by aggrieved employees including, if applicable, civil penalties, unpaid wages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

c.    A statement of the amount of consideration that will be subject to the 75%/25% allocation required by section 2699(i).

d.    A statement of the net amount, after deduction of any identified fees and/or costs, payable to purported aggrieved employees, along with a precise explanation as to how the amount payable to each purported aggrieved employee is to be calculated.

3.    To the extent not otherwise explained, the allocation of attorneys’ fees between the part of the case dealing with individual claims and the part of the case dealing with PAGA claims An explanation as to why the attorneys’ fees and costs sought are reasonable within the meaning of Labor Code section 2699 (g) (1).

a.    Any amount allocated to claims administration.

b.    A description of any other amount(s) being deducted from the gross settlement amount.

c.    A description of the tax treatment for any of the payments to plaintiff and/or aggrieved employees.

4.    A provision setting forth the disposition of unclaimed funds, i.e., checks uncashed within a stated period of time after being sent to aggrieved employees.

5.    A provision that the proposed settlement be submitted to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court. (Labor Code section 2699(l)(2))

6.    A provision that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6.

7.    A notice to aggrieved employees that will accompany the payment to them, a copy of such notice to be provided to the court for approval along with the motion seeking approval of the settlement.

8.    Releases that do not include Civil Code section 1542 releases for aggrieved employees other than plaintiff.

9.    Releases that release no more, for aggrieved employees other than plaintiff, than the civil penalties available under PAGA by reason of the facts alleged in the operative complaint.

10. Inform the court by declaration whether there is any class or other representative action in any other court that asserts claims similar to those alleged in the action being settled. If any such actions are known to exist, state the name and case number of any such case and the procedural status of that case.