7 results for 'judge:"Garnett"'.
J. Garnett grants final approval to a $10 million settlement in a class action alleging that the window treatment company put a “discount” price on products that was actually the real price of the products. Class members who submit a claim will receive a settlement amount in cash, while class members who choose not to submit a claim will automatically receive store credit that will not expire. Class counsel is awarded just over $1.4 million, representing 14% of the settlement, which is well below the 25% benchmark set by the 9th Circuit.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv8326, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Settlements, Attorney Fees, Class Action
J. Garnett grants final approval of a $750,000 settlement that will end a class action accusing 99 Cents Only Stores and its retirement plan of exhibiting “lack of skill, flawed processes and imprudent decisions" that reduced the account balances and diminished the returns on the employee participants' 401(k) investments. Although the settlement only represents 25% of the total potential damages to be sought at trial, the participants estimated only a 50% chance of success as to their claims, so the settlement amount is reasonable.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1966, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Erisa, Settlements, Class Action
J. Garnett grants in part unhoused individuals' and a grassroots organization's motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the city from seizing and discarding or destroying the possessions of unhoused individuals. The individuals allege that during sweeps, city workers throw all property into a dumpster, then remove the dumpster without giving individuals a chance to retrieve their belongings, however the city's stated procedure is to give notice prior to sweeps, and not to destroy belongings, but to store them so that they can be retrieved later. The individuals have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that giving individuals only two days to retrieve their belongings violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The city may continue abatement efforts, but it must comply with the city's stated policies, including allowing individuals 90 days to retrieve belongings.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 5:23cv1536, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights
J. Garnett finds in favor of the insured for her claim that the insurance company terminated her and her husband's life insurance policies before he unexpectedly died without giving them a 60-day payment grace period or providing the requisite notices. The insured is entitled to contract damages, because it is undisputed that the insurance company did not give proper notice before terminating the husband's life insurance policy, and it also did not tell him of his right to designate a third party to receive notice upon pending termination.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 8:21cv2065, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Garnett grants partial summary judgment to CVS against the floater pharmacist's claim that CVS fired him for taking a screenshot of a patient's prescription, printing it out and bringing it home to consult with his wife, also a CVS pharmacist, about the correct amount and to discern the physician's handwriting. Firing him for copying a patient's prescription was not retaliation because that is a terminable offense on its own.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv7520, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation