Tentative Ruling: Steven Joseph Thomas v. Boys & Girls Club of South San Luis Obispo County, et al.
Case Number
24CV03448
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 10/02/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
1) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; 2) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award
Tentative Ruling
- For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiff for final approval of class action settlement is granted.
- For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiff for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive award is granted.
- Plaintiff shall submit a corrected proposed order for the court’s review and signature. Counsel shall appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss all matters remaining at this time.
Background:
The first amended class action complaint (FAC) filed in this case on October 1, 2024, by plaintiff Steven Joseph Thomas (Plaintiff or, at times, Thomas) is the operative pleading. As alleged in the FAC:
The Boys & Girls Club of South San Luis Obispo County (the SLO Club), the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Central Coast (the Central Coast Club), and the United Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Barbara County (the SB Club) (collectively, Defendants) own and operate child care and education centers under the name “Boys & Girls Club”. (FAC, ¶ 27.) From 2018 until 2023, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. (FAC, ¶¶ 19 & 29.) During that employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to care for and supervise children without a rest break, and to work shifts longer than 5 hours without a meal break. (FAC, ¶¶ 30-31.) Defendants also deposited pay checks into Plaintiff’s account without providing accurate pay stubs. (FAC, ¶ 35.) Because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all earned wages, Plaintiff ended his employment relationship with Defendants. (FAC, ¶ 36.)
The FAC alleges six causes of action against Defendants: (1) itemized wage statement (check stubs) penalties (Lab. Code, §§ 226, 558 & 558.1); (2) waiting time penalties (Lab. Code, §§ 201-203, 558 & 558.1); (3) meal break violations (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7 & 512, subd. (a)); (4) rest break violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7); (5) restitution/injunction (unlawful competition in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. & Lab. Code, § 558.1); and (6) civil penalties under Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA).
On December 20, 2024, the SB Club filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting sixty-three affirmative defenses.
The court has no record showing that the SLO Club or the Central Coast Club filed a response to the FAC.
On November 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion (the preliminary approval motion) for, among others, an order granting preliminary approval of a “Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice” (the Settlement); appointing Adrian R. Bacon (attorney Bacon) and Todd M. Friedman (attorney Friedman) of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman as “Class Counsel”; appointing Plaintiff as the “Class Representative”. The preliminary approval motion was calendared for hearing on March 6, 2026.
On March 6, 2026, after a hearing, the court issued a minute order (the Minute Order) adopting its tentative ruling continuing the preliminary approval motion to April 17, 2026, to permit Plaintiff to file and serve a supplemental brief or declaration curing or otherwise addressing deficiencies in the proposed class notice and notice plan as further described in the Minute Order.
On April 3, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration of attorney Bacon.
On April 17, after a hearing, the court entered a minute order adopting its tentative ruling granting the preliminary approval motion. In granting that motion, the court preliminarily approved or certified: the Settlement; provisionally for settlement purposes, a class consisting of approximately 935 non-exempt employees of Defendants (the Class) who are or were employed in California from June 18, 2020, until April 23, 2026, (the Class Period); the appointment of Plaintiff as the “Class Representative”; the payment of a “Class Representative Service Payment” of $10,000 to Plaintiff; the appointment of attorneys Bacon and Friedman as “Class Counsel”; payment of a “Class Counsel Fees Payment” of up to $75,000 and a “Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment” of up to $10,000; the appointment of Phoenix Class Action Settlement Solutions, Inc., (Phoenix) as the “Settlement Administrator”; payment of a “PAGA Award” in the amount of $10,000, 75 percent of which will be paid to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency or “LWDA” and 25 percent of which will be allocated to the members of the Class or “Class Members”; the form, content, and mailing to all Class Members of a revised “Court Approved Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval” (the Revised Notice) attached to the supplemental declaration of attorney Bacon filed on April 3 and described above; and an implementation schedule for further proceedings. (See Apr. 17, 2026, Minute Order & Apr. 23, 2025, Order Granting Preliminary Approval.)
On September 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for an order finally approving the Settlement (the final approval motion), and separately filed an unopposed motion for an order granting attorney’s fees, costs, and an incentive award (the fee motion).
Analysis:
“Before final approval, the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(g).) “If the court approves the settlement agreement after the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter judgment. The judgment must include a provision for the retention of the court’s jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The court may not enter an order dismissing the action at the same time as, or after, entry of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(h).)
The court “has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair.” (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) A class action settlement is presumptively fair if it was reached through arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after extensive investigation, litigation, and discovery. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) A presumption of fairness also exists where the parties’ investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, counsel is experienced in similar litigation, and the percentage of objectors is small. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.)
Each of the first three elements in regard to the presumption of fairness and described above were established at the time of preliminary approval. No further evidence or information has been presented which would alter the court’s preliminary determination of these elements.
With respect to the fourth element described above, the final approval motion is supported by a declaration of Kevin Lee (Lee), who is a Case Manager at Phoenix. (Lee Dec., ¶ 1.) Lee describes the class administration duties performed by Phoenix pursuant to the Settlement which include preparing, translating, printing, and mailing the Revised Notice; responding to inquiries from Class Members; calculating the number of weeks each Class Member worked during the period from June 18, 2020, to April 23, 2026, (the Class Period for the Central Coast Club), the period from June 18, 2020, to December 31, 2025, (the Class Period for the SLO Club), and during the period from June 18, 2020, to April 29, 2025, (the Class Period of the SB Club); calculating the number of pay periods that each non-exempt employee (or Aggrieved Employee) worked from June 18, 2023, to April 23, 2026, (the PAGA Period); determining the validity of requests to be excluded from the Settlement, written objections to the Settlement, or disputes submitted by Class Members regarding the number of weeks during which a Class Member worked for Defendants for at least one day during the Class Period (or “Workweeks”); calculating the “Net Settlement Amount” or “NSA” and the individual shares of the NSA to be paid to Class Members (the Individual Class Payments); calculating and issuing the Individual Class Payments and distributing them to those Class Members who do not submit a valid and timely written request to be excluded from the Settlement (the Participating Class Members); calculating and distributing the pro-rata shares or “Individual PAGA Payments” to Aggrieved Employees; and issuing payment for the Class Counsel Fees Payment, the Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payments, the Class Representative Service Payment, and employer and employee payroll taxes to the appropriate taxing authorities. (Lee Dec., ¶ 2.)
Lee states that on May 18, 2026, Phoenix received data files from defense counsel that contained the names, last known mailing addresses, Social Security numbers, and dates of employment for each Class Member (the Class List) and total weeks worked during the Class Period. (Lee Dec., ¶ 3.) The final mailing list contained 869 individuals identified as Class Members. (Ibid.)
On May 28, 2026, Phoenix conducted a search of the National Change of Address (NCOA) database, which provides updated addresses for any individual who has moved in the previous four years and notified the United States Postal Service of their change of address. (Lee Dec., ¶ 4.) On June 26, 2026, Phoenix mailed the Revised Notice, in English and Spanish, by first class mail to all Class Members on the Class List. (Lee Dec., ¶ 5 & exhibit A.)
According to Lee, 56 Revised Notices were returned to Phoenix, none of which included a forwarding address. (Lee Dec., ¶ 6.) Phoenix attempted to locate a current mailing address using TransUnion TLOxp, which Lee asserts is one of the most comprehensive address databases available for skip tracing. (Ibid.) Of the 56 Revised Notices that were skip traced, 45 updated addresses were obtained and the Revised Notice was promptly re-mailed to those Class Members via first class mail. (Ibid.) Eleven Revised Notices remain undeliverable. (Lee Dec., ¶ 7.)
The deadline to submit a written request to be excluded from the Settlement (or Request for Exclusion) was August 10, 2026, or August 24 for the re-mailed Revised Notices described above. (Lee Dec., ¶ 8.) As of the date of the Lee declaration, Phoenix has received three Requests for Exclusion from Class Members. (Ibid.) The deadline to object to the Settlement was August 10, or August 24 for the re-mailed Revised Notices. (Lee Dec., ¶ 9.) Phoenix has received no objections to the Settlement from Class Members. (Ibid.) The same deadlines apply to any disputes regarding Workweeks, and Phoenix has received no Workweek disputes from Class Members. (Lee Dec., ¶ 10.)
There are 866 Class Members who did not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion and are deemed Participating Class Members, representing 99.65 percent of the Class. (Lee Dec., ¶ 11.) The Participating Class Members have worked a collective total of 49,089 Workweeks during the Class Period, with each Workweek valued at approximately $2.28. (Ibid.)
Lee further states that the Settlement includes an “Escalator Clause” which provides that if the actual total number of Workweeks exceeds 15 percent or 50,224, each respective defendant shall have the option to either end the Class Period as of the first date the Workweek count exceeds 15 percent above their respective Workweek number, or to increase their pro-rate share of the NSA on a proportional basis above the 15 percent threshold. (Lee Dec., ¶ 12.) The Central Coast Club did not trigger the Escalator Clause. (Ibid.) Because the SLO Club elected to end the Class Period as of the date there were no more than 8,402 workweeks, which is December 31, 2025, the Class Period for the SLO Club is from June 18, 2020, through December 31, 2025. (Ibid.) Further, the SB Club elected to end the Class Period as of the date there were no more than 15,546 workweeks, such that the Class Period of the SB Club is from June 18, 2020, through April 29, 2025. (Ibid.) The total number of Workweeks is 49,089. (Ibid.)
The amount of the NSA available to pay to Participating Class Members totals $112,062.57, which Phoenix determined by subtracting the Class Counsel Fees Payment ($75,000), the Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment ($5,437.43), the Class Representative Service Payment ($10,000), the PAGA Award ($10,000), and a payment to Phoenix (the Administration Expenses Payment) ($12,500) from the Gross Settlement Amount or “GSA” of $225,000. (Lee Dec., ¶ 13.) Based upon the calculations stipulated in the Settlement, the highest Individual Class Payment is approximately $694.31, the lowest Individual Class Payment is approximately $2.28, and the average Individual Class Payment is approximately $129.40. (Lee Dec., ¶ 14.) Participating Class Members will be issued their Individual Class Payments subject to reduction for that employee’s share of taxes and withholdings with respect to the wages portion of the Individual Class Payment. (Ibid.)
Lee further states that $10,000 of the GSA was allocated toward penalties under PAGA, of which $7,500 will be paid to the LWDA, and $2,500 will be paid to all current and former hourly non-exempt individuals who are or were employed by Defendants during the PAGA Period. (Lee Dec., ¶ 15.) There are 737 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 17,978 workweeks during the PAGA Period. (Ibid.) The highest Individual PAGA Payment is approximately $10.43, the lowest Individual PAGA Payment is approximately $0.08, and the average Individual PAGA Payment is approximately $3.39. (Ibid.) Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to fund the employer-side taxes due separate from the GSA. (Lee Dec., ¶ 16.)
Lee asserts that the Administration Expenses Payment requested by Phoenix is $12,500, which includes all costs incurred to date, as well as estimated costs involved in completing the settlement distribution. (Lee Dec., ¶ 17.) A copy of the invoice from Phoenix is attached to the Lee declaration. (Lee Dec., exhibit B.)
For all reasons discussed above, the available evidence and information shows that Phoenix did not receive a Request for Exclusion from any Class Member who received the Revised Notice, any objections to the Settlement from those Class Members, or any written disputes regarding individual workweeks or pay periods from the Class Members. Though eleven of the Revised Notices mailed to Class Members are considered undeliverable, as Phoenix received no objections, no Requests for Exclusion, or disputes from those Class Members to whom the Revised Notice was mailed, the factors present here give rise to a presumption that the Settlement is fair.
The court must also determine the adequacy of a class action settlement by independently satisfying itself that the consideration being received for the release of the class members’ claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.) The court has reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by Plaintiff, including with respect to the strengths and weakness of the claims asserted in this action and the uncertainties of and risks inherent in protracted litigation. Based upon the totality of the circumstances present here, the court is satisfied that the settlement preliminarily approved is fair and reasonable, and will certify the Class for settlement purposes only.
The court will affirm plaintiff Thomas as the Class Representative. The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of the final approval motion. The information and evidence presented in that declaration shows that Plaintiff expended time and effort, at Plaintiff’s own expense, to assist Class Counsel in pursuing the claims alleged in this action, and incurred risks in serving as Plaintiff and Class Representative. In light of the time and efforts expended by Plaintiff in this action, and considering the risk and Plaintiff’s relatively small financial interest in the outcome, the court finds that the Class Representative Service Payment to be paid to Plaintiff as the Class Representative is reasonable. The court will therefore approve that payment in the amount of $10,000.
The court further affirms and approves the allocation of $10,000 of the GSA to the claims for civil penalties asserted under PAGA, and the payment of $7,500 to the LWDA.
The court will also approve the appointment of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman as Class Counsel.
The separately filed fee motion requests attorney fees in the amount of $75,000 , and costs in the amount of $5,437.43. “[T]he court’s task in a negotiated settlement of fees is to determine if the negotiated fee is fair. That task requires the court to review the settlement as a whole, including the fee award, to ensure that it was fairly and honestly negotiated, is not collusive and adequately protects the interests of the [parties].” (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 444.)
The court has reviewed the information, evidence, and arguments presented in the unopposed fee motion, including the declaration of attorney Bacon which shows that the lodestar, or number of hours expended by Class Counsel multiplied by Class Counsel’s the hourly rates which the court finds reasonable, totals $106,825.50. (Bacon Dec., ¶¶ 57-58 & 61; see Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134–1136 [general discussion].) Furthermore, the attorney fees requested by Class Counsel in the amount of $75,000 represent approximately 33.33 percent of the GSA. Under the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the attorney’s fees sought by Class Counsel appear to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the court will approve payment of the Class Counsel Fees Payment to Class Counsel in the amount of $75,000.
The litigation costs incurred by Class Counsel also appear to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation, and will be approved in the amount of $5,437.43 as requested in the fee motion. (See Bacon Dec., ¶ 59.)
As to the costs incurred by Phoenix to administer the Settlement, based on the information and evidence presented by Lee regarding the tasks undertaken by Phoenix and described above, the court will approve a payment to Phoenix in the amount of $12,500.
For all reasons stated above, the court will grant the final approval motion and the fee motion, and enter an order: (1) granting final approval of the Settlement; (2) granting final certification of the Class for settlement purposes only; (3) finding that the Revised Notice has been given to 869 Class Members, with eleven Revised Notices being deemed as undeliverable; (4) appointing Phoenix as the settlement administrator; (5) finding that Phoenix has received 3 Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement, and has received no objections to the Settlement or disputes from any Class Members regarding workweeks; (6) appointing Plaintiff’s counsel the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; (7) appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; (8) approving the terms of the Settlement as to the claims for civil penalties alleged under PAGA, and the allocation of $10,000 to settle Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims, from which the amount of $7,500 will be paid to the LWDA; (9) approving an award of attorney’s fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $75,000; (10) approving an award of litigation expenses in the amount of $5,437.43, to be paid to Class Counsel; (11) approving an award of settlement administration costs to Phoenix in the amount of $12,500; and (12) approving the Class Representative Service Payment to be paid to Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.
Further, the court will reserve jurisdiction over the parties for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, or administering the Settlement or enforcing the terms of the judgement.
The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff and does not intend to sign it. For example, the proposed order does not include all of the terms of the releases that appear in the Revised Notice distributed to the members of the Class, which include, among other things, language specifying the claims which the Participating Class Members do not release. The court will require Plaintiff to submit a corrected proposed order for the court’s review and signature. Further, counsel shall appear at the hearing of the motion and be prepared to discuss a date for submission of a final accounting report and distribution of settlement funds, and any other matters remaining at this time.