But he argues, persuasively, that Watkins has no ability to intervene on behalf of all the Watkins plaintiffs, or to object to the Reichert settlement on their behalf. Dkt. 199 at 5 (citing Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 WL 9872803, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014)).

This too weighs in favor of settlement approval. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phx. Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties in favor of settlement approval).

This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma, 913 F.Supp.2d at 977 (factoring civil PAGA penalties as weighing in favor of settlement approval); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB-BGS, 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (same).

See, e.g., Gatdula v. CRST Int'l, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 01285 (VAP) (OPX), 2015 WL 12697656, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) (“Had Segura, Herroz, and Carroll submitted their opt-out forms timely, any objections they had would be meritless as they would lack standing to object.”); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 2679 (CAB), 2014 WL 9872803, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (“Here, by opting out of the class, Martinez fully preserved his right to litigate any claims he may have independently, and therefore has no significant protectable interest in the settlement.”); In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions, 215 F.3d 26, 28-29 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (noting that “class members who have opted out of a 23(b)(3) class action have no standing to object to a subsequent class settlement” because “by opting out they ‘escape the binding effect of the class settlement'” (quoting Mayfield v. Barr, 985 F.2d 1090, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1993))).

) This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phx. Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB-BGS, 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties as being in favor of settlement approval). 7. Reaction of the Class Members

) This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phx. Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB-BGS, 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties in favor of settlement approval). 7. Reaction of the Class Members

This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phx. Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB-BGS, 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties as being in favor of settlement approval). /////

Further, the cases cited by both Federal Plaintiffs and Eventbrite are distinguishable because they involved motions to intervene to object to settlements, including motions to intervene after preliminary approval was granted. See, e.g., Feller v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6025839, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) (denying motion to intervene that had been filed a month after settlement had been preliminarily approved); In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2016 WL 4376623, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) (denying motion to intervene that was filed day before court preliminarily approved class action settlement); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 WL 9872803, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (denying motion to intervene that was filed weeks after court preliminarily approved class action settlement). As stated previously, State Court Plaintiffs are not intervening for the purpose of objecting to the settlement.

) This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phx. Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB-BGS, 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties in favor of settlement approval). 7. Reaction of the Class to Proposed Settlement

This too weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 13-cv-2679-CAB (BGS), 2014 WL 9872803, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (factoring civil PAGA penalties in favor of settlement approval). 7. Reaction of the Class to Proposed Settlement