HOLDINGS: [1]-In a wage-and-hour putative class action, the preliminary approval of class action settlement was not granted because, among others, plaintiff’s motion did not discuss the additional issues of justifying the release of FLSA claims in the settlement. Moreover, plaintiff provided minimal information as to the value of class’s claims and it did not proved the court with sufficient information to evaluate the reasonableness of the class’s recovery; and the court required additional information supporting the settlement of plaintiff’s representative California’s Private Attorneys General Act, Lab. Code § 2699; [2]-The Court deferred ruling on preliminary class certification until the parties present a settlement that merits preliminary approval. Parties’ San Diego litigation attorney appeal.
Outcome
Motion for preliminary settlement approval denied. Ruling on preliminary class certification deferred.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Without a statutory exception to the noticed motion requirement of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, and Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, the trial court erred in granting a request for attorney’s fees and costs under Civ. Code, § 2924.12, subd. (h), that was not properly noticed and was contained within a memorandum submitted in support of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) application; [2]-Because the plain language of § 2924.12, subd. (h), allowed borrowers who prevailed in obtaining injunctive relief to obtain attorney’s fees and a TRO was a form of injunctive relief, a court was authorized, in its discretion, to award fees to borrowers who prevailed in obtaining a TRO, while considering relevant factors including the ex parte nature of the proceedings, the relative merits of the TRO application, and ability to obtain statutory compliance through an injunction.
Outcome
Reversed and remanded.