From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kim v. Sheraton Operating Corp.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 21, 2021
CV 17-9247 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)

Opinion

CV 17-9247 FMO (ASx)

12-21-2021

DANIEL KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHERATON OPERATING CORP., Defendant.


JUDGMENT

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Order”), filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment, IT IS ADJUDGED THAT:

1. Plaintiff Daniel Kim shall be paid a service payment of $5,000.00 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order.
2. Class counsel shall be paid $56,250.00 in attorney's fees, and $12,500.00 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order.
3. The Claims Administrator, Phoenix, shall be paid for its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. The LWDA shall be paid $7,500.00 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
5. All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement).
6. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein and in the prior orders of the court.


Summaries of

Kim v. Sheraton Operating Corp.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 21, 2021
CV 17-9247 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)
Case details for

Kim v. Sheraton Operating Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Dec 21, 2021

Citations

CV 17-9247 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)

Citing Cases

Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.

But Grubhub has not cited any case suggesting an employer can lawfully refuse to pay minimum wage just…