On 01/31/2017 ANTHONY SMITH filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against DEL REY RESTAURANT CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL J. BUCKLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DANIEL J. BUCKLEY
WHISKEY RED'S SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS
DEL REY RESTAURANT CORPORATION
DOES 1 TO 100
SPECIALTY RESTAURANT CORPORATION
DEL REY RESTAURANT CORPORATION DBA WHISKEY RED'S IN MARINA DEL REY CALIFORNIA DBA CASTAWAY IN BURBANK CALIFORNIA DBA HS LORDSHIPS IN BERKELEY CALIFORNIA DBA LUMINARES IN MONTEREY PARK CALIFORNIA DBA MONTEREY HILL IN MONTEREY PARK CALIFORNIA DBA
HAMNER CHRISTOPHER J. ESQ.
HAMNER CHRISTOPHER JAMES
OLSEN CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER
ZALLER ANTHONY JOHN
MCWILLIAMS ANNE RAYMOND
AGUILAR MARIANA LEIGH
12/21/2017: Notice of Related Case
11/19/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
4/3/2019: Notice of Related Case
4/17/2019: Minute Order
5/14/2019: Stipulation and Order
3/20/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
6/9/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS (LABOR CODE 226.7, 512; IWC ORDER 5; CAL. CODE REGS., TITLE 8 11050); ETC
6/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/21/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
7/21/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
7/25/2017: Minute Order
9/15/2017: Minute Order
11/3/2017: Minute Order
Stipulation and Order (Vacating July 9, 2019 Hearing on Defense Motion to Compel Arbitration); Filed by Anthony Smith (Plaintiff); Del Rey Restaurant Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Further Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Further Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Joint Status Conference Statement; Filed by Anthony Smith (Plaintiff); Del Rey Restaurant Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Submission of Petition for Coordination); Filed by Specialty Restaurants Corporation Erroneously Sued As Specialty Restaurant Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Related Case; Filed by Del Rey Restaurant Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 1, Daniel J. Buckley, Presiding; Further Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 17; Further Status Conference (Further Status Conference; Continued by Stipulation) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS (LABOR CODE 226.7, 512; IWC ORDER 5; CAL. CODE REGS., TITLE 8 11050); ETCRead MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Anthony Smith (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Anthony Smith (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF (LABOR CODE 226.7; IWC ORDER 5; CAL. CODE REGS., TITLE 8 11050); ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC648826 Hearing Date: February 11, 2020 Dept: 1
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Hon. Daniel Buckley
Smith et al. v. Del Rey Restaurant Corporation, et al.
Case Number: BC648826 r/t BC661228
Hearing: February 11, 2020
Continue Preliminary Approval for counsel to address the following:
1. Class Certification:
a. Counsel needs to address the adequacy of the class representatives.
2. Counsel needs to provide a reasonable estimate of the nature and amount of recovery that each class member could have obtained if Plaintiff prevailed as to the PAGA cause of action. The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.)
3. Proposed Terms of Settlement Agreement:
a. Class Definition. Paragraph IV.A has an addition to the Class Definition that paragraph II.1 does not (“and who did not sign a release of claims released by this Agreement relating to their work with any of the Defendants.”) Make sure the class definition is the same in all provisions of the settlement.
b. The settlement needs to clearly set out the requested attorney’s fees i.e. $166,500, not just 1/3 of the Maximum Settlement Payment.
c. The settlement needs to clearly set out the total amount requested for enhancement awards i.e. $22,500, not just $7,500 each.
d. Why is paragraph IV.D’s tax allocation of 5% as wages and 95% as expense reimbursement, interest and penalties respectively proper in light of the exposure analysis counsel provides (See Olsen Decl., ¶¶26-36) which allocates a majority of the exposure to wages?
e. Objection Procedure: Revise Paragraph V.I.1 so that class members do not need to file objections with the Court. Ensure it is clearly stated that class members may appear and be heard at final approval without first filing a written objection.
f. Extend the check cashing deadline in paragraphs IV.K and IV.P from 120 to 180 days.
g. The release should not take place until after the settlement is funded. Revise paragraph VII.A.1 accordingly.
h. Cy Pres: Why does paragraph IV.P state the money will be made out in the name of the class member, while paragraph IV.K does not? Does this mean this money is only for the named class member to use?
4. Provide information as to the contents of any agreement about how attorney fees will be paid, including fee splitting and whether the client has given written approval. (Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219; Cal. Rule 1.5.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.) Counsel states there is an agreement in place which Plaintiff agreed to but does not provide information as to the split.
5. Provide proof of service of the proposed settlement on the LWDA. (Labor Code §2699(l)(2).)
6. Notice: Counsel is to address the following issues:
a. Who is Plaintiff Cervantes references on pg. 3? Ensure that the enhancement awards clearly state the total sought for all class representatives.
b. Why does the notice state “[a]lthough the Parties did not reach a settlement at mediation, the Parties continued to discuss settlement and finally reached an agreement nearly a year later” (Motion, pg. 2), while the motion states “[u]ltimately, after a contentious full day of negotiations, the parties were able to resolve the matter” (Motion 7:10.)?
c. Why does pg. 4 of the notice provide the following tax allocation: “one-third shall be designated as wages subject to payroll withholding to be reported on IRS Form W2s where required by law, and the remaining two-thirds amount shall be designated as interest and penalties to be reported on IRS Form 1099s where required by law”, while paragraph IV.D of the Settlement allocates 5% to wages and 95% to interest and penalties?
d. Why does pg. 5 of the notice state “To object, you must file a written objection and a notice of intention to appear with the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063”? Class Members do not need to file objections or notices to appear with the court. Also anything filed in connection with this litigation should be filed in the Los Angeles Courthouse.
7. If the Settlement Agreement is modified pursuant to this checklist, please submit both a red-lined copy showing changes made as well as a final version signed by all parties. Do not submit an addendum in lieu of full amended settlement agreement including all operative settlement terms. Modify notice to match any alterations to the Settlement Agreement.
If parties wish to submit to the tentative, please contact Department 1 staff to continue the matter to a date that is agreed upon by all parties.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases